→Walter Kuhn: number of pages |
|||
Line 1,093: | Line 1,093: | ||
*: To determine DUE weight - in RSes with full profiles on Kuhn - how much is devoted to the Nazi period?[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 20:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC) |
*: To determine DUE weight - in RSes with full profiles on Kuhn - how much is devoted to the Nazi period?[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 20:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::The most balanced profile of Kuhn I've seen is by Wilhelm Fielitz in the ''Handbuch der voelkischen Wissenschaften'' which covers his whole life. It offers slightly more than a page to Kuhn before the war, less than a page to during, and probably a whole page to after (the preview isn't showing the middle of the three pages unfortunately). Unsurprisingly, favorable or mostly favorable profiles tend to leave out what he did in the war and just focus on before and after ([https://kulturportal-west-ost.eu/biographien/kuhn-walter-2 Angermann], Rhode, Weczerka). I'll note that only Rhode of those three is a former Nazi. At least two articles in the bibliography deal specifically with the problems of Kuhn's work pre-war and during the war (Pinwinkler, Michelsen "Von Breslau nach Hamburg", which only covers Kuhn on two pages though). Otherwise scholarship that mentions Kuhn (Burleigh's ''Germany Turns East'', Haar's ''Historiker im Nationalsozialismus'') mentions him mostly in passing, sometimes with more, sometimes with less, biographical information, but generally not much (if anything) post-war. What I'd consider to be a more balanced portrayal of Kuhn before and during the war (though still largely made in passing) is in Chu's ''The German Minority in Interwar Poland''. He gets mentioned on a single page of a number of books, but these tend to rely on Burleigh, I would say. Most negative citations on Kuhn are from work by Haar, Michelsen, and Burleigh, and don't discuss him in any depth. I'm still waiting on a few sources on that, however. MyMoloboaccount cites prodominently Polish sources and I have found decyphering what those sources are very difficult. I'm currently waiting on what I expect to be a negative scholarly assessment of Kuhn's postwar work by Marek Cetwiński (ironically Kuhn tore apart Cetwinski's dissertation in a review ten years before Cetwinski wrote that).--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 20:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC) |
:::The most balanced profile of Kuhn I've seen is by Wilhelm Fielitz in the ''Handbuch der voelkischen Wissenschaften'' which covers his whole life. It offers slightly more than a page to Kuhn before the war, less than a page to during, and probably a whole page to after (the preview isn't showing the middle of the three pages unfortunately). Unsurprisingly, favorable or mostly favorable profiles tend to leave out what he did in the war and just focus on before and after ([https://kulturportal-west-ost.eu/biographien/kuhn-walter-2 Angermann], Rhode, Weczerka). I'll note that only Rhode of those three is a former Nazi. At least two articles in the bibliography deal specifically with the problems of Kuhn's work pre-war and during the war (Pinwinkler, Michelsen "Von Breslau nach Hamburg", which only covers Kuhn on two pages though). Otherwise scholarship that mentions Kuhn (Burleigh's ''Germany Turns East'', Haar's ''Historiker im Nationalsozialismus'') mentions him mostly in passing, sometimes with more, sometimes with less, biographical information, but generally not much (if anything) post-war. What I'd consider to be a more balanced portrayal of Kuhn before and during the war (though still largely made in passing) is in Chu's ''The German Minority in Interwar Poland''. He gets mentioned on a single page of a number of books, but these tend to rely on Burleigh, I would say. Most negative citations on Kuhn are from work by Haar, Michelsen, and Burleigh, and don't discuss him in any depth. I'm still waiting on a few sources on that, however. MyMoloboaccount cites prodominently Polish sources and I have found decyphering what those sources are very difficult. I'm currently waiting on what I expect to be a negative scholarly assessment of Kuhn's postwar work by Marek Cetwiński (ironically Kuhn tore apart Cetwinski's dissertation in a review ten years before Cetwinski wrote that).--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 20:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::Do the Polish language sources cover just the war - or a fuller bio? Fielitz would indicate around 30% to war. [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 20:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:58, 8 September 2019
Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
NAMBLA content on Harry Hay
Sorry for the length and subject matter.
I found the inclusion of NAMBLA content in the lead of Harry Hay surprising, and in looking at the sources used, then a look to see if there were better ones available, I found sourcing lacking. I took the one sentence off the lead and also removed Category:Pedophile activism as both seemed inappropriate. Can you guess where this is going? They were both re-added and the content in the lead expanded. (Here is a copy as of 4 July 2019. I read all the sources I could find and tried to apply NPOV. After a couple rounds of this I gave up and started a survey of all sources on this content.
NAMBLA is widely despised as child molesters by the vast majority of LGBTQ people as well as popular culture. It’s a group for pedophile advocacy. Pedophilia, is a preference for prepubescent children as old as 13. NAMBLA is possibly the most hated group imaginable to many LGBTQ people.
Any connections to NAMBLA automatically taint whoever is connected with them. The vast majority of reliable sources barely mention anything, those that do cite:
- February 1983, Hay speaks at an event (not NAMBLA’s) and states, “...if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.” This quote follows Hay’s recounting his own positive sexual experience when he was 14 with an older man (reasoning for his going public in proposed content section); No reliable source for the quote but one good source for the overall speech.
- June 1986, LA Pride parade bans NAMBLA, Hay wears a sign in protest on his back, one supporting Valerie Terrigno who was also banned, on his front.
- June 1994, Stonewall 25, and ILGA bans NAMBLA, Hay and 149 others protest the action, about NAMBLA mainly (reasoning in proposed content section) and march in the Spirit of Stonewall alternative parade with 7,000.
- sometime in 1994, spoke at a NAMBLA event where he suggested changing the group’s name. (I only see one brief mention of this.)
reliable sources found
Click for list of reliable sources on this with any usable content
|
---|
|
References
- ^ Vern L. Bullough (2002). Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context. Psychology Press. p. 74. ISBN 978-1560231936.
"Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate."; "an action he took because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world."
- ^ Timmons 1990, p. 295.
- ^ "The smear campaign continues: Fox Nation, Washington Examiner manufacture Jennings-NAMBLA link". Media Matters for America. October 2, 2009. Retrieved 2019-07-01.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help) - ^ Hay, Harry (1997). Roscoe, Will (ed.). Radically gay : the story of gay liberation in the words of its founder. Beacon Press. pp. 302–307. ISBN 9780807070819. OCLC 876542984.
- ^ Rind, Wright Bruce (2016), "Chapter 10; Blinded by Politics and Morality—A Reply to McAnulty and Wright", in Hubbard, Thomas K.; Verstraete, Beert C. (eds.), Censoring Sex Research : the Debate Over Male Intergenerational Relations, Taylor & Francis, pp. 279–298, doi:10.4324/9781315432458-16, ISBN 9781611323405, OCLC 855969738, retrieved 2019-07-12
Unless other reliable sources support this material and demonstrate it has a significant bearing on his life I don’t see how this should be in the lead. As well I think the category is inappropriate. Am I crazy? Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Feedback
When Hay was was alive, his constant advocacy for NAMBLA and his cruising of boys was common knowledge. Same as with Ginsberg. It's part of what made Hay a controversial figure - someone who was routinely disrupting Pride, getting kicked out of the very orgs he founded (Mattachine Society), etc. I've tried to explain this to Gleeanaon, who clearly wasn't around then, but he takes my suggestion to read the sources as a personal attack. He suggests respected gay journalists like Michael Bronski, who was part of some of the same radical collectives as Hay, are somehow orchestrating a smear campaign. I suggest anyone who wants to comment first read Bronski's article, "The real Harry Hay", all the way to the end, as Bronski points out the the New York Times and other major outlets were already leaving the NAMBLA stuff out of his obits, and immediately trying to reinvent him on death:
Neither of the long and laudatory obits in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times mentioned his unyielding support for NAMBLA or even his deeply radical credentials and vision. Harry, it turns out, was a grandfatherly figure who had an affair with Grandpa Walton. But it’s important to remember Hay — with all his contradictions, his sometimes crackpot notions, and his radiant, ecstatic, vision of the holiness of being queer — as he lived. For in his death, Harry Hay is becoming everything he would have raged against.
Gleeanon's main project right now is editing National LGBTQ Wall of Honor, and they are the one who added the list of names and are the creator and main editor of the article. Gleeanon honestly didn't seem to any know this about Hay, as he seems to not know much about any of the older community members he's copy and pasting into that list. I've told them the answer is not to rewrite history. But Gleeanon keeps deleting discussions from their talk page and misrepresenting both the sourcing and other people's edits. He has become a Tendentious editor who is wasting our time with his, I'm sorry, ignorance of this topic and, possibly, agenda to whitewash on behalf of this group. If the people working on the memorial didn't want someone this problematic, they should have asked older people, or done their research, rather than trying to whitewash the honorees after the fact. Gleeanon is now focusing rather intensely on this. I have asked if they have COI on this project and they have denied it, but I'm really not sure I believe that given this intense POV push. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It may be that Bronski had an inside view of what Hay was like, and that Bronski disliked the fact that reliable sources like the New York Times, did not consider these problematic aspects of Hay to be significant aspects of his life. It may be that some people involved in some hall of fame project have failed to consult enough older people about their choice of inclusions. But Wikipedia should reflect what the balance of reliable sources say about it, not the views of individuals with an interest or individuals disgusted or disappointed. MPS1992 (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Also, editors are permitted by policy to blank content from their own talk page -- especially when the content concerned is several thousand words in length. Blanking such content is generally regarded as an indication that they have read it. Anyway that's a question of editor conduct, not a question of article neutrality which is what this noticeboard covers. MPS1992 (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- I have continually asked for reliable sources that verify the “constant advocacy for NAMBLA” and pedophilia. There seems to be a massive conspiracy except one lone, but respected LGBTQ journalist. Perhaps that should be also shoehorned into the lead? One of the world’s best known pioneering gay rights advocates whose had dozens of obituaries, articles, interviews, books, and documentaries about him all fail to mention this despite Wikipedia even advertising it, possibly for years. Perhaps because they saw was is plainly evident, a lack of evidence despite NAMBLA themselves posting every scrap of pro-pedophile material they can. I look forward to more people looking into this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Conspiracy? There is/was no conspiracy. This has been common knowledge for decades. The sources support this common knowledge. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed -- but the sources do not seem to regard it as significant in the individual's biography. MPS1992 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- MPS, it's not just Bronski, it's the Gay press in general who wanted this known about him, because he was continually raising a stink about it and people were having to kick him out of groups and events. It's in the Advocate[1], and his own group, the Radical Faeries have it on their tribute page to him:[2]. This isn't righting great wrongs, it's keeping history accurate against a POV push from a relatively new, revisionist editor. NAMBLA is ugly. Of course people would rather not see it. But those who supported and promoted the pedophile group should be kept accountable. Go look at the article, not this user's misrepresentations. I think there is a misunderstanding here about what WP:NPOV is. We write in a neutral voice. It doesn't mean we hide awful things about people to make them sound nicer. Yeah, it's hard to write neutrally about a pedophile group. So we just state the facts. But we don't bury the facts when he, after Allen Ginsberg, was probably the group's most famous advocate in the gay community. Yeah, it's gross. But it happened. So we document it. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting. I guess you really are saying that the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times were "revisionist" as well, and therefore we shouldn't consider them reliable on this topic, but instead we should only consider reliable the views of people that Hay knew personally and had had disagreements with? MPS1992 (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- MPS, it's not just Bronski, it's the Gay press in general who wanted this known about him, because he was continually raising a stink about it and people were having to kick him out of groups and events. It's in the Advocate[1], and his own group, the Radical Faeries have it on their tribute page to him:[2]. This isn't righting great wrongs, it's keeping history accurate against a POV push from a relatively new, revisionist editor. NAMBLA is ugly. Of course people would rather not see it. But those who supported and promoted the pedophile group should be kept accountable. Go look at the article, not this user's misrepresentations. I think there is a misunderstanding here about what WP:NPOV is. We write in a neutral voice. It doesn't mean we hide awful things about people to make them sound nicer. Yeah, it's hard to write neutrally about a pedophile group. So we just state the facts. But we don't bury the facts when he, after Allen Ginsberg, was probably the group's most famous advocate in the gay community. Yeah, it's gross. But it happened. So we document it. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed -- but the sources do not seem to regard it as significant in the individual's biography. MPS1992 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Conspiracy? There is/was no conspiracy. This has been common knowledge for decades. The sources support this common knowledge. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Or, let us look at it a different way. There are three questions. First, should Hay's protesting the exclusion of NAMBLA from events be mentioned in the article? (I would say yes.) Second, should it be mentioned in the lede of the article? And third, if it should be mentioned in the lede of the article, how should it be mentioned there? MPS1992 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Those sources are already included in the seven(!) total(!) to be found, this one is a collection of obits with only one even touching on this content, the very sole one you helpfully quoted at length despite it already being posted above. These scraps were then woven into a grand story. It certainly feels “undue”. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
References in the article include Hay's official bio, which was fine with Gleeanon until he realized it sourced all this, with this photo:[3], where Hay wore the sign, "NAMBLA walks with me" in LA Pride. As I said on talk: I really didn't want to link to them, but here's - https://www. nambla. org/hay2002.html NAMBLA's index on their Harry Hay materials. This page has - https://www. nambla. org/sanfrancisco1984.html photos of Harry Hay speaking on a NAMBLA panel in 1984, in San Francisco, under their banner. And again in 1986 in Los Angeles (no photo). Ick. The link is not live because, understandably, the site is on the blacklist. So the the url has spaces. You will have to copy and paste, and take out the spaces, to see it. Ick again. Gleeanon thinks all this is a conspiracy. But it's in Hay's official bio, which was written by some of his most ardent supporters. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- None of that proves anything but that he made invited speeches at some of their conferences, helpfully they provide their version of the transcripts which show ... no advocacy for the group or even anything beyond Hay recounting his own positive gay sex experiences as a kid. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Trying to destroy Pride because they wouldn't let NAMBLA march is not being an advocate? Helping them re-brand in order to get more members, sitting under the banner for photos while the group was sending out newsletters with photos of smiling seven year olds with the caption, "Smiles mean consent." Wow. You are really reaching here. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Original research inventing narratives not supported by reliable or even NAMBLA’s own sources isn’t helpful. Zero evidence Hay had control of how his photo was used, that he was helping recruit, or even destroy Pride. All interesting ideas that I’m sure will be spun into gold by right wing bloggers. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- OK folks, I think we need some outside input here, if anyone is willing? That's what this noticeboard is for. MPS1992 (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm quite bemused by all this discussion about whether Hay was a ardent supporter of NAMBLA. He was. Anyone who is old enough, was contemporaneous in his communities while he was alive, knows it to be true. As a co-founder of the Mattachine Society, people saw him as an elder statesman in the 1970s-90s. Gay people listened when he had opinions. Many vociferously disagreed with him on supporting NAMBLA. There were a significant number of Gay/Lesbian newspapers and newsletters during that time period. Hay did interviews with them and articles were written about him. Those papers, often with very good journalists writing for them, could be used as contemporaneous reliable sources. Unfortunately, only a fraction of them are available online. They would be secondary sources on this issue. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Mark Ironie: If you know of any particular articles, post a request at Wikipedia:RX and volunteers there may get free copies. Also searching university library databases may pull up some articles. For articles prior to the 1980s or 1985 etc some of those may not be available electronically and will need to be taken from microfilms. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- If you are aware of any reliable sources, they are welcome. I just added one that was wedge into the lead just hours ago which ironically proves how weak the sourcing remains. As to your point, it seems like the only thing that we can reliably verify up to now, is that he defended their right to be in two Pride parades where they had been banned, and the reasons. Arguably this might have caused a furor at the time, although I’m not seeing any evidence of that either, but don’t we have to rely on verification through reliable sources? What we have after searching is listed at the top. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- "I also would like to say at this point that it seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need." He is advocating for children to be in sexual relationships with adults. He gave this speech in 1983 at NYU and it is archived on the NAMBLA website as well as here [1]. On the Back to Stonewall site it also states,"These events overshadowed Hay’s previous legacy so much that today he is all but forgotten and purposely left out of many LGBT historical writings." Indigenous girl (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- The first quote you cite is already included in the first sections of this report, sourced only to NAMBLA itself, everyone has pulled it from them.
- On the surface, the “On the Back to Stonewall“ site looks great but the Hay content seems to be word for word copying from an older version of Wikipedia’s Hay page. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- "I also would like to say at this point that it seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need." He is advocating for children to be in sexual relationships with adults. He gave this speech in 1983 at NYU and it is archived on the NAMBLA website as well as here [1]. On the Back to Stonewall site it also states,"These events overshadowed Hay’s previous legacy so much that today he is all but forgotten and purposely left out of many LGBT historical writings." Indigenous girl (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm quite bemused by all this discussion about whether Hay was a ardent supporter of NAMBLA. He was. Anyone who is old enough, was contemporaneous in his communities while he was alive, knows it to be true. As a co-founder of the Mattachine Society, people saw him as an elder statesman in the 1970s-90s. Gay people listened when he had opinions. Many vociferously disagreed with him on supporting NAMBLA. There were a significant number of Gay/Lesbian newspapers and newsletters during that time period. Hay did interviews with them and articles were written about him. Those papers, often with very good journalists writing for them, could be used as contemporaneous reliable sources. Unfortunately, only a fraction of them are available online. They would be secondary sources on this issue. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- OK folks, I think we need some outside input here, if anyone is willing? That's what this noticeboard is for. MPS1992 (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Original research inventing narratives not supported by reliable or even NAMBLA’s own sources isn’t helpful. Zero evidence Hay had control of how his photo was used, that he was helping recruit, or even destroy Pride. All interesting ideas that I’m sure will be spun into gold by right wing bloggers. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Trying to destroy Pride because they wouldn't let NAMBLA march is not being an advocate? Helping them re-brand in order to get more members, sitting under the banner for photos while the group was sending out newsletters with photos of smiling seven year olds with the caption, "Smiles mean consent." Wow. You are really reaching here. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I am aware that the quote has been previously linked to however I thought it best that it was out in the open. Please help me try and understand, are you insinuating that the speech at the forum, hosted by the Gay Academic Union at NYU in 1983, given by Hay, is not accurately presented? Are you insinuating that Back To Stonewall is made up of revisionists and that Will Kohler doesn't know what he's talking about? Indigenous girl (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- The quote was already out in the open, it’s point #1, in bold of this report.
- That speech is only known from NAMBLA’s posting their transcript. It has to be presented that way. Additionally it’s not about NAMBLA so you have to use original research to say it is. It’s also not about pedophilia, Hay was the 14-year old and the man he had sex with thought he was an adult.
- I’m saying ”Back To Stonewall” didn’t even use their own words for the NAMBLA content, they used Wikipedia’s Hay article as gospel, but as is evident here, all the NAMBLA content is generally unverified and he presents zero sources or even credit to Wikipedia. I have no problem publishing true content that is verifiably sourced, but we are currently publishing unverified, and possibly unverifiable claims. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Actually the GSU collection at USC[2] contains the entire transcript of his speech. He specifically mentions NAMBLA in the context of his speech and urges allies to advocate for sex with 13, 14 and 15 year old children because, "it's what they need more than anything else in the world.". Indigenous girl (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Indigenous girl:, or @CorbieVreccan:, who added it to the article here, can you share how you verified this? Any link that others can use?
- I do accept the NAMBLA-posted transcript does mention the group in the summary of the speech. I still think it’s borderline original research and has to be used NPOV. His speech is a testamonial of Hay’s own positive experience as a 14-year old having gay sex with an older man, based on his own experience he thinks that parents and friends of gays “should be running interference for NAMBLA”. Only presenting this material NPOV without original interpretation is acceptable. He also does not specifically advocate for sex with teens, but says a relationship which, I think requires original research to infer he meant romance or sex rather or additionally to anything else. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- Are you serious? In one sentence he advocates defending NAMBLA and in the next he speaks positively about relationships between young teenagers and older men. How could you possibly read that in a way that isn't about sexual relationships? All of your comments in this thread give the impression of increasing desperate denialism. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- Your opinion is noted. I maintain that Wikipedia should report facts that are actually verified in reliable sources. All this NAMBLA content is dependent on supposedly well-known information which few to none reliable sources documented. Compare that to the mamouth volume about this is the lead and article. Any reader would falsely believe this was central to his life. Yet the vast majority of reliable sources make no mention of it. Those that do make very little mention of it. Yet the article lead? It’s a fourth of the content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Gleeanon409: One way to obtain older newspaper sources is to use university library databses and type in particular phrases. Some of those may be paywalled/closed, but Wikipedia:RX is a tool one can use to get access. Some older papers are not electronically available, but articles may be available in microfilms. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Your opinion is noted. I maintain that Wikipedia should report facts that are actually verified in reliable sources. All this NAMBLA content is dependent on supposedly well-known information which few to none reliable sources documented. Compare that to the mamouth volume about this is the lead and article. Any reader would falsely believe this was central to his life. Yet the vast majority of reliable sources make no mention of it. Those that do make very little mention of it. Yet the article lead? It’s a fourth of the content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- Are you serious? In one sentence he advocates defending NAMBLA and in the next he speaks positively about relationships between young teenagers and older men. How could you possibly read that in a way that isn't about sexual relationships? All of your comments in this thread give the impression of increasing desperate denialism. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- Actually the GSU collection at USC[2] contains the entire transcript of his speech. He specifically mentions NAMBLA in the context of his speech and urges allies to advocate for sex with 13, 14 and 15 year old children because, "it's what they need more than anything else in the world.". Indigenous girl (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- I notice someone had already mentioned The Advocate - I wish to elaborate further and state that the article described Hay as being an older generation thing:
- Weir, John. "Mad about the boys." The Advocate. Here Publishing, August 23, 1994. ISSN 0001-8996. Start: p. 33. CITED: p. 37.
- "Harry Hay, 82, a founder of the Mattachine Society[...]suggests to a crowded room at the recent NAMBLA meeting that a name change for the association might help." -- "Hay's presence at the NAMBLA meeting signified that NAMBLA is more than just an advocacy group for men imprisoned[...] It has become in part the last refuge for longtime activists who feel alienated from the current mainstreaming of the lesbian and gay community."
- It might help to search on Google Books for content like this. Check the publisher to ensure that it is not self-published.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- I looked around Google Books but sadly found that a lot of the newer books mentioning it tended to be hyper-religious or small publisher things... I'm looking for books from major publishers. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Found: Miller, Ben (2017-04-10). Jacobin https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/harry-hay-communist-mattachine-society-lgbtq.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) "When he died at ninety in October 2002, many remembrances focused on Hay’s late-life defense of the North American Man/Boy Love Association. While Hay never joined the group, he did defend it from being expelled from several LBGTQ conferences. His defense of NAMBLA was eccentric and troubling, rooted in his own experiences of teenaged sexual activity. But it was a small piece of Hay’s long life of writing and activism." - This source argued that it was not a significant part of Hay's activity and that he never joined... If you think Jacobin is mischaracterizing this, it would be good to find a secondary source (from a reputable publisher, of course) which says the opposite. "Gay History – October 23rd: The Almost Forgotten Gay Activist Harry Hay and Quebec’s Gay Club Raid Protests" (mentioned above by another user) seems to contradict Jacobin when it states "These events overshadowed Hay’s previous legacy so much that today he is all but forgotten and purposely left out of many LGBT historical writings." but it may be good to check the publishing status of this website to see if it counts as a Reliable Source. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Found: Miller, Ben (2017-04-10). Jacobin https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/harry-hay-communist-mattachine-society-lgbtq.
- I looked around Google Books but sadly found that a lot of the newer books mentioning it tended to be hyper-religious or small publisher things... I'm looking for books from major publishers. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://www.back2stonewall.com/2017/10/gay-history-october-23-harry-hay-montreal.html
- ^ [Box 2/folder 21] Lesbian and Gay Academic Union Records, Coll2011-041, ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives, USC Libraries, University of Southern California
Notes before closing
In closing, I think the discussion here has reached consensus that this is reliably sourced as a prominent and recurring issue in Harry Hay's political work. As Gleeanon409's initial presentation did not include all the sources, mentioned "sources" that are not in the article, and simply dismissed all sources that discuss this part of Hay's life as "unreliable", I am including a list here of the actual sources that cite this well-known, unfortunate fact about Harry Hay. As others have said, NPOV means we write neutrally about the facts of someone's life, without censorship. This was a well-known fact of Hay's life.
Reliable Sources:
- The Advocate (LGBT magazine) <ref name="Advocate1994">{{cite magazine|last=Weir|first=John|title=Mad About the Boys|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KmMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA37|date=23 August 1994|magazine=[[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|The Advocate]]|page=37|issn=0001-8996}}</ref>
- Michael Bronski for The Phoenix <ref name= rhh>{{cite news|url=http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm|archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20120302214758/http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm |archivedate=2012-03-02|title=The real Harry Hay|date=2002-11-07|accessdate=2008-11-16|first=Michael|last=Bronski|authorlink=Michael Bronski|newspaper=[[The Phoenix (newspaper)|The Phoenix]]|quote=He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment, as when he consistently advocated the inclusion of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in gay-pride parades.|dead-url=no}}</ref>
- MIT Press <ref name=NonasLeVay>{{cite book|author1=Simon LeVay|author2=Elisabeth Nonas|title=City of Friends: A Portrait of the Gay and Lesbian Community in America|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cl-4yFFql8gC&pg=PA181&dq=Harry+Hay+NAMBLA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb4enV94XjAhVnTt8KHWyVCHUQ6AEITTAH#v=onepage&q=Harry%20Hay%20NAMBLA&f=false|year=1997 |publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0262621137|page=181|quote=Although some prominent gay leaders such as Harry Hay have supported NAMBLA's right to participate in gay rights marches, the link between NAMBLA and the mainstream gay rights movement has always been tenuous.}}</ref>
- Stuart Timmons, Hay's Official Biographer: scan of photo plate <ref name="LAPridePhoto">{{cite web|url=https://www.wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Harryhaysignnambla2.jpg|title=Photos by Sandy Dwyer |last=Timmons |first=Stuart|date=1990|work=The Trouble with Harry Hay: Founder of the Modern Gay Movement|accessdate=2010-06-24|quote=The sign Harry tried to wear in the 1986 L.A. Gay Pride Parade}}</ref>
- <ref name=Spectator>{{Cite news | last = Lord | first = Jeffrey | title = When Nancy Met Harry | work = The American Spectator | date = 2006-10-05 | url = http://spectator.org/archives/2006/10/05/when-nancy-met-harry | accessdate = 2009-04-14 | deadurl = yes | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090329000719/http://spectator.org/archives/2006/10/05/when-nancy-met-harry | archivedate = 2009-03-29 | quote=Said Harry: "Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."}}</ref> Gleeanon wants to exclude this because it's "conservative". WP does not exclude sources on the basis of being liberal or conservative, and the text is the same as in the full speech below. This is included because it is an online text.
- Hay himself <ref name=LGAUfullspeech>[Box 2/folder 21] Lesbian and Gay Academic Union Records, Coll2011-041, ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives, USC Libraries, University of Southern California</ref>
- Timmons again {{sfn|Timmons|1990|p=310}} {{sfn|Timmons|1990|p=295}} - Official biographer
- Vern Bullough <ref name=Bullough>{{cite book|author=Vern L. Bullough|authorlink=Vern Bullough|title=Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context |publisher=Psychology Press |year=2002 |isbn=978-1560231936|page=74}}</ref> In Before Stonewall, biographer Vern L. Bullough writes, "Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign [supporting NAMBLA] rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate."
- Yale University Press / Hay again / GCN again: Hay, Harry, "Focusing on NAMBLA Obscures the Issues", Gay Community News, Fall 1994, pp. 16, 18. As cited in {{cite book |title=Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America|year=2004|last=Jenkins |first=Philip |publisher=Yale University Press|page=275|isbn=978-0300109634}} Hay writes on the issue for Gay Community paper of record.
- Hay's spiritual group: Obituary on Radical Fairy site, reproduces Bronski obituary.
- Obviously, as the NAMBLA site is blacklisted, we are not going to link to their website pages, but they have Hay's speeches, and photos of him speaking in front of their banner on their panels. These speeches and photos are in other publications that are not currently available online, but they are well-known in the community. It is inappropriate for Gleeanon409 to cast aspersions on older editors who remember these things and suggest this material is fabricated. This material is linked via broken URL's on article talk.
There are more mentions out there online, and a ton more in print, but these are the ones in the article at the moment. To include this material is in no way an endorsement of Hay's views. It is certainly not an endorsement of NAMBLA. Whenever someone invokes "trying to right great wrongs" when it's something like pedophile advocacy (dear gods...) I wonder if they think we have no responsibility as editors here at all. Hay made quite the ruckus trying to keep NAMBLA from being shunned when he was alive, so it's only fair that it stays in his article now. What's there right now is NPOV and minimal, all things considered. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 00:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Of course I remain dubious of these statements, and how “NPOV” and “minimally” the content is presented but first I’ll look at these sources to see which ones aren’t already listed at top, and include and assess what information should be added. It will take me a little while to do all this. When I’m ready I’ll post here again with a summary. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Advocate article was already listed by me in the reliable sources section; so is the Bronski obit with it’s quote; so is the superfluous Timmons photo; so is the problematic Jeffrey Lord article; so is the Vern Bullough book; so is the Gay Community News; so is the link to the Radical Faeries.
I’ve added the Simon LeVay book; and the LGAU archive box.
I see little value in adding any more credibility to NAMBLA by acknowledging their online content, we can hold our collective noses and use the Spectator article that got it from them. His other two times as speaker both were Hay talking about his own positive experiences with gay sex when he was young. We already have the context for the quote to cover that, and it’s all primary sourced. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC) - So we basically haven’t moved much to allay my initial concerns.
There remains zero reliable sourcing to support “Hay was an active supporter [of NAMBLA]”, you may know it to be true but no reliable source has backed it up.
Also it’s deceptive to state Hay “protested the group being banned from Pride parades” when we only have evidence for two; 1986 LA Pride, and 1994 Stonewall parades.
It’s also POV to state he spoke “about helping the group strategize a name change to help with their public image” implying he was doing something not implicated in his speech, a neutral take would be more along the lines of what I tried, he thought boy lover had negative connotations just like homosexual did in the 1950’s.
Wikipedia is broadcasting worldwide these deceptions. I can’t see how any content on NAMBLA should be wedged into the lead, and the utter lack of coverage in reliable sources presented so far suggests it should be trimmed to a NPOV minimum in the article.
Additionally there remains zero evidence to prop up the “Pedophile advocacy” category being included. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Speaking of POV, what you are calling "gay sex when he was young" was sex between an adult man and a 14 year old boy. Then Hay went on to speak at a handful of events that we have documented to plead with the gay community to endorse adults having sex with kids as young as 13, saying this would be the best thing adult gay people could do for gay kids. This is horrible. This is why he got kicked out of Pride parades and shunned by those who cared about kids. You are minimimizing criminal activity, this man's advocacy for criminal activity, and the way he tried to implicate normal gay people in criminal activity. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- He “pleaded” for gay men to have sex with teens? Or did he mean mentoring them? I don’t think we can say without evidence so instead, again to be NPOV, we likely should just report neutrally what the sources support, “relationships”, and leave the leap of guilt for the reader to decide. And that “series of events”, looks to be a total of three, and it was NAMBLA that kicked out of parades, and not even NAMBLA advocated for breaking any laws. Please dial down the hysteria and actually let the reliable sources dictate what is verified instead of your own memories. Your personal facts might be the gospel truth but they don’t belong in an encyclopedia. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Speaking of POV, what you are calling "gay sex when he was young" was sex between an adult man and a 14 year old boy. Then Hay went on to speak at a handful of events that we have documented to plead with the gay community to endorse adults having sex with kids as young as 13, saying this would be the best thing adult gay people could do for gay kids. This is horrible. This is why he got kicked out of Pride parades and shunned by those who cared about kids. You are minimimizing criminal activity, this man's advocacy for criminal activity, and the way he tried to implicate normal gay people in criminal activity. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Nowhere was this more evident than in Hay’s persistent support of NAMBLA’s right to march in gay-pride parades. In 1994, he refused to march with the official parade commemorating the Stonewall riots in New York because it refused NAMBLA a place in the event. Instead, he joined a competing march, dubbed The Spirit of Stonewall, which included NAMBLA as well as many of the original Gay Liberation Front members.
A source specifically states that he "persistently" protested NAMBLA's exclusion from these marches. Including that is not deceptive; it's accurately following the sources. Your personal research about which marches he protested cannot be used to counter that statement.Harry Hay... suggests to a crowded room at the recent NAMBLA meeting that a name change might help.
Maybe this isn't "strategizing", but the source does say that he offered them advice on how to improve their image. This is not "adding credibility to NAMBLA," it's presenting the facts about Harry Hay as recorded in reliable sources. That is, and should be, the sole goal of Wikipedia. Material is not censored because we fear it may lend credence to some disgusting agenda, and biographies are not white-washed because we might prefer to see our heroes presented in a better light. Oh, and even Britannica mentions his support of NAMBLA [6]Hay often waded into contentious debates, notably by advocating for such controversial organizations as the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a pro-pederasty group.
. This isn't some smear cooked up by the right-wing media and Wikipedia.- That being said, I agree that these statements
He spoke out in support of relationships between adult men and boys as young as thirteen
andhelping the group strategize a name change to help with their public image
are not well-sourced. They rely on analysis of primary sources and that questionable Spectator article (hard to tell if it's an opinion piece or journalism). It would be better to leave that out of the lead, and just let the quotes speak for themselves in the body of the article. I think that entire final sentence should be cut from the lead, both for issues of sourcing and to avoid lending undue weight to the issue. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)- Indigenous girl found the full speech about NAMBLA where Hay "urges allies to advocate for sex with 13, 14 and 15 year old children because, 'it's what they need more than anything else in the world.' in the ONE archives of Hay's speeches at USC. So, the sourcing is solid, and it should be included in the body of the article. As long as the rest of the text prior to that is in the lede, as it was before Gleeanon's disruption, I think the specific details about that speech (which he gave multiple times) can be left for further down. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's a primary source, and appears to be interpreted as such -- those are the dangers of primary sources. I understand that the topic causes emotions to run riot, but this is, after all, the neutral point of view noticeboard. MPS1992 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- By the way, @Gleeanon409:, please do not say things like 'it’s deceptive to state Hay “protested the group being banned from Pride parades” when we only have evidence for two' -- no that is not deceptive. If he protested two of them, he protested it on an ongoing basis. Don't be silly. MPS1992 (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, as MPS1992 says, any text of the speech is a primary source, and we are not permitted to analyze primary sources and summarize them. I think it might be acceptable to quote some of the text of the speech in the article, since it's on a topic discussed by other secondary sources, and it's in the subject's own words, but we cannot put in any interpretation of what he's saying absent a secondary source that reports on his speech and what it means. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Right, as the primary source is available for comparison, we are able to see that the secondary sources are quoting Hay accurately. So that means the Spectator, Kohler, and the others cannot be ruled out just because we may not like their views on other issues. That is the sole reason I left the Spectator in - to verify the quote. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Are you guys totally following the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we should be summarising what secondary sources say, not just confirming that our chosen primary sources are accurate in what they say and what our longstanding appreciation of them is? MPS1992 (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- The main function of the primary source is to assuage concerns that the Spectator piece was completely inventing something. Author Jeffrey Lord's opinion of Hay based on that speech would need to be attributed, though. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sourcing this NAMBLA content and presenting it NPOV has been the main problems from the beginning. It remains that we ONLY have the primary source for this quote. Kohler copies Wikipedia word for word, I pointed this out in a previous section, and the Spectator, which is unmistakably an opinion hit piece, acknowledges they got it off NAMBLA’s website. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- The main function of the primary source is to assuage concerns that the Spectator piece was completely inventing something. Author Jeffrey Lord's opinion of Hay based on that speech would need to be attributed, though. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Are you guys totally following the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we should be summarising what secondary sources say, not just confirming that our chosen primary sources are accurate in what they say and what our longstanding appreciation of them is? MPS1992 (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Right, as the primary source is available for comparison, we are able to see that the secondary sources are quoting Hay accurately. So that means the Spectator, Kohler, and the others cannot be ruled out just because we may not like their views on other issues. That is the sole reason I left the Spectator in - to verify the quote. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, as MPS1992 says, any text of the speech is a primary source, and we are not permitted to analyze primary sources and summarize them. I think it might be acceptable to quote some of the text of the speech in the article, since it's on a topic discussed by other secondary sources, and it's in the subject's own words, but we cannot put in any interpretation of what he's saying absent a secondary source that reports on his speech and what it means. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Indigenous girl may have found that Archive box source but you added it to the article, I asked both of you for anything that other editors could verify the information but nothing yet has come forth. It remain unclear what if anything about Hay’s speech is in there. Please be clear about what that source actually is and how it was confirmed.
And my “disruption” has continued to prove there indeed is glaring NPOV and sourcing issues. I’m glad we’re finally getting some more eyes on the issues, as well as finding any reliable sources. Hopefully the article will improve and all this content will be adjusted with due weight. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)- @MPS1992: It’s hardly silly, especially with such contested and controversial content, to be precise, NPOV, and encyclopedic when reporting this content, specifically in the number of parades he protested NAMBLA being banned from. There were two, separated by eight years. It’s deceptive not to report the facts as verified. I would say the same thing if there were eight or dozens. Let the facts speak for themselves. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Having more time to look over sources, I can't see an NPOV version of Hay's article not mentioning NAMBLA. Now, I will say that I agree that The Specator should not be cited, or more accurately Jeffrey Lord should not be cited. That's not because he's a conservative, but because he has a documented history of saying utterly ridiculous things about anything he perceives as liberal. He's a political strategist, not an academic or a journalist, and his expertise is trying to make opponents look bad. Aside, I found what I consider two more useful sources that I don't think have been mentioned yet. Hay, Harry (1997). Roscoe, Will (ed.). Radically Gay. Beacon Press. ISBN 9780807070819. seems to me a very good reference for sourcing content on this topic. There are also two contrasting interpretations of Hay's support for NAMBLA in Hubbard, Thomas K.; Verstraete, Beert (2013). Censoring Sex Research: The Debate Over Male Intergenerational Relations. Left Coast Press. ISBN 9781611323399. One of those interpretations was penned by Bruce Rind, who has a well known agenda, but I find he does have a point. Specifically, while searching for sources, it was hard to miss the volume of relatively recent conservative hit pieces that bring up Hay and overstate his support of NAMBLA, even going so far as to say he founded the organization. I will not cite those as they are light years from RS. That is, there really are people trying to posthumously demonize him as advocating for the rights of sexual predators to rape children, and may explain counter-attempts to minimize his involvement with them. Anyway, I found original statements of Hay and other content in Radically to be quite illuminating on Hay's position toward the group (note that although Hay is listed as the author, he is not the literal author of much of the content within). Notably, at times Hay described his support NAMBLA as being a sort of counter-counter-reaction. His belief was that NAMBLA was being excluded from the gay movement to appease conservatives, and therefore the gay community was allowing outsiders/opponents to dictate who could be members of it. He also of course had a very expansive view of "consent" as described here, that included underage males seeking out older men for sexual purposes, as already mentioned. Again, I don't see how an NPOV article avoids mentioning this, but it does have to be done correctly. I would actually avoid using any sources that are just dumbing down the history here to "Hay supported NAMBLA". Those are not useful because they are far more vague than we need to be. The outline of a paragraph or two I think would be npov would go, 1. Hay was controversial for his involvement with nambla. 2. Although not a member, Hay protested in support of Nambla's rights to march, etc. 3. Accurately describe Hay's statements on man-boy relations and exclusion of groups from the movement. It's of course a tricky thing because people see 'nambla', the imagine creepy old men grooming young boys for molestation. I assume that's the goal of some of the writers who bring this up. It's also obvious that although what Hay had in mind was still a crime, it's not that particular scenario. Plenty of people will consider that a distinction without a difference, but they will be basing that opinion on an accurate statements of facts. But anyway, I think this is achievable, inevitable, and necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I very much appreciate your insight and comments on this. It’s exactly what I was hoping would happen here.
No one has suggested that this content shouldn’t be presented in the article. How it’s presented, and wether any mention belongs in the lead is the main concern.
I’ll have a look at these new sources to see how they can add to the understanding of the subject. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC) - I’m having several issues accessing these sources mostly because I’m using Google Books. The site purposely blocks sections of pages so I’m not sure that when I’m searching I’m getting all the content on the subject, as well everything has to be hand copied rather than cut and paste. If anyone has ideas I’m open to them! Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- I very much appreciate your insight and comments on this. It’s exactly what I was hoping would happen here.
- Having more time to look over sources, I can't see an NPOV version of Hay's article not mentioning NAMBLA. Now, I will say that I agree that The Specator should not be cited, or more accurately Jeffrey Lord should not be cited. That's not because he's a conservative, but because he has a documented history of saying utterly ridiculous things about anything he perceives as liberal. He's a political strategist, not an academic or a journalist, and his expertise is trying to make opponents look bad. Aside, I found what I consider two more useful sources that I don't think have been mentioned yet. Hay, Harry (1997). Roscoe, Will (ed.). Radically Gay. Beacon Press. ISBN 9780807070819. seems to me a very good reference for sourcing content on this topic. There are also two contrasting interpretations of Hay's support for NAMBLA in Hubbard, Thomas K.; Verstraete, Beert (2013). Censoring Sex Research: The Debate Over Male Intergenerational Relations. Left Coast Press. ISBN 9781611323399. One of those interpretations was penned by Bruce Rind, who has a well known agenda, but I find he does have a point. Specifically, while searching for sources, it was hard to miss the volume of relatively recent conservative hit pieces that bring up Hay and overstate his support of NAMBLA, even going so far as to say he founded the organization. I will not cite those as they are light years from RS. That is, there really are people trying to posthumously demonize him as advocating for the rights of sexual predators to rape children, and may explain counter-attempts to minimize his involvement with them. Anyway, I found original statements of Hay and other content in Radically to be quite illuminating on Hay's position toward the group (note that although Hay is listed as the author, he is not the literal author of much of the content within). Notably, at times Hay described his support NAMBLA as being a sort of counter-counter-reaction. His belief was that NAMBLA was being excluded from the gay movement to appease conservatives, and therefore the gay community was allowing outsiders/opponents to dictate who could be members of it. He also of course had a very expansive view of "consent" as described here, that included underage males seeking out older men for sexual purposes, as already mentioned. Again, I don't see how an NPOV article avoids mentioning this, but it does have to be done correctly. I would actually avoid using any sources that are just dumbing down the history here to "Hay supported NAMBLA". Those are not useful because they are far more vague than we need to be. The outline of a paragraph or two I think would be npov would go, 1. Hay was controversial for his involvement with nambla. 2. Although not a member, Hay protested in support of Nambla's rights to march, etc. 3. Accurately describe Hay's statements on man-boy relations and exclusion of groups from the movement. It's of course a tricky thing because people see 'nambla', the imagine creepy old men grooming young boys for molestation. I assume that's the goal of some of the writers who bring this up. It's also obvious that although what Hay had in mind was still a crime, it's not that particular scenario. Plenty of people will consider that a distinction without a difference, but they will be basing that opinion on an accurate statements of facts. But anyway, I think this is achievable, inevitable, and necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- @MPS1992: It’s hardly silly, especially with such contested and controversial content, to be precise, NPOV, and encyclopedic when reporting this content, specifically in the number of parades he protested NAMBLA being banned from. There were two, separated by eight years. It’s deceptive not to report the facts as verified. I would say the same thing if there were eight or dozens. Let the facts speak for themselves. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Update (July 6, 2019)
I got feedback on the two books suggested above. Accordingly the Will Roscoe one will likely be used to note facts but not analysis.
While the Hubbard - Verstraete one, is considered of scholarly research and likely can be used to explore Hay’s motivations. I have a copy of the book on its way as I’ve been unable to fully access it online. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for sticking with this. I think some criticisms have been valid and others have been problematic. I hope you will take others' concerns seriously, and I hope that you will recognize their concerns about the historical portrayal of Harry Hay. Equally, I hope they will understand and help in your efforts to portray Hay according to reliable sources. I think you are all trying to achieve the same aim -- more or less. I am from a different cultural milieu, so I can't really claim to understand any of it. MPS1992 (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you! I’m learning plenty about sex and sexuality researchers including the prejudice and backlash they faced when they approach taboo subjects. Apparently that’s been true from the beginning. I’m almost through the first book, if I have to I’ll track down the other as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- I’ve asked for some help at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Pro-research help needed for Harry Hay. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- I’ve also asked for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Opinion piece? By Harry Hay In ‘94 Gay Community News. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Possible content
Hay’s favorite story, of his coming-of-age, “which he repeatedly told to audiences in later years and refered to ironically as his ‘child molestation speech,’ in order to emphasize how sharply different gay life is from heterosexual norms,” recounted his time as an emancipated fourteen-year-old (circa 1926) pursuing sex with a man in his mid-twenties who assumed Hay was of the age of consent.[1] He shared the story “specifically to contradict entrenched stereotypes and to caution against uncritical generalizations so common in reference to pederasty.“[1] The man gave Hay “tips on how ‘people like us’ should conduct themselves, which ‘inspired Harry almost as vividly as the erotic memory’.”[2][1]
In 1986, Los Angeles Pride wanted Hay to march, but they had banned NAMBLA, a group synonymous in the U.S. with pro-pedophilia advocacy, and had to negotiate for him to only carry a sign, rather than a larger banner, to protest the action.[3] Hay wanted to do so “because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world.”[3] He ended up wearing two posterboard signs; one for Valerie Terrigno, a recently disgraced lesbian politician also banned from the parade, on his front, “Valerie Terrigno walks with me";[4] and on his back, “NAMBLA walks with me.”[2]
Eight years later, in 1994, Hay was again protesting NAMBLA being banned: ILGA (now ILGBTIA), the-then only group representing gays and lesbians at the United Nations (UN) banned them and two other groups from membership;[a] and Stonewall 25 organizers, producing the 1994 twenty-fifth anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the largest LGBTQ Pride event in the world as of then,[6] banned them and similar groups from its Pride protest march,[7][b] that purposely changed the route to use First Avenue going past the UN, reflecting the events’ international focus on LGBTQ issues.[9] Hay was among the 150 “activists, scholars, artists, and writers” who signed on to support Spirit Of Stonewall (SOS), an ad hoc group that felt the banned group had free speech, and association rights.[7] Hay delivered “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads” speech, concerning the expulsion of NAMBLA, at a SOS press conference, where he stressed three organizing principles from the formation and growth of the LGBTQ movement he used since the early 1950s: we do not censor or exclude one another; if someone identifies as lesbian or gay he accepts them as such; and we cannot allow heterosexuals to dictate who is in our communities—we decide.[10] Hay helped lead the counter-march with almost 7,000 participants.[3]
Notes and References
- ^ “Brussels-based ILGA, said NAMBLA joined the association about 15 years ago, when it was a loose network with no rules for admission.“ (approximately 1979). [5] They instituted a screening process to eliminate pro-pedophile advocates.
- ^ The Stonewall 25 signature event was the pride march, the International March on the United Nations to Affirm the Human Rights of Lesbian and Gay People.[6] Stonewall 25 organizers plans also went public that they were not going to include leathermen or drag queens in the official ceremonies,[8] prompting the creation of the first annual New York City Drag March. Of the two counter-marches, only the drag march continued.
- ^ a b c Rind, Wright Bruce (2016), "Chapter 10; Blinded by Politics and Morality—A Reply to McAnulty and Wright", in Hubbard, Thomas K.; Verstraete, Beert C. (eds.), Censoring Sex Research : the Debate Over Male Intergenerational Relations, Taylor & Francis, pp. 279–298, doi:10.4324/9781315432458-16, ISBN 9781611323405, OCLC 855969738, retrieved 2019-07-12
- ^ a b Timmons, 1990, page 36.
- ^ a b c Vern L. Bullough (2002). Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context. Psychology Press. p. 74. ISBN 978-1560231936.
"Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate."; "an action he took because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world."
- ^ Timmons 1990, p. 310.
- ^ Mills, Kim I. (February 13, 1994). "Gay Groups Try to Put Distance Between Themselves and Pedophile Group". AP NEWS. Retrieved 2019-07-14.
- ^ a b Lenius, Steve (June 6, 2019). "Leather Life: Stonewall 25 Memories". Lavender Magazine. Retrieved 2019-07-14.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help) - ^ a b Walsh, Sheila (June 10, 1994). "Ad Hoc Group Formed To Protest Ban On NAMBLA" (PDF). Washington Blade. Retrieved July 14, 2019.
- ^ Dommu, Rose (2018-06-25). "Hundreds Of Drag Queens Fill The NYC Streets Every Year For This 'Drag March'". HuffPost. Retrieved 2019-06-08.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help) - ^ Osborne, Duncan (June 19, 2018). "A Heritage of Disagreement". Gay City News. Retrieved 2019-07-15.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help) - ^ Hay, Harry (1997). Roscoe, Will (ed.). Radically gay : the story of gay liberation in the words of its founder. Beacon Press. pp. 302–307. ISBN 9780807070819. OCLC 876542984.
Comments
If any better sources are forthcoming I’m happy to check them out and add accordingly.
I’m proposing this content be used in the article instead of the current material, after this has been vetted.
Separately, and dependent if any new sources are found, decisions can be made if the category is appropriate, and what, if any, content belongs in the lead. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think this text serves as neutral. Is this intended as the lede? Or into the Later years: 1980-2002 section? It still seems like white-washing. I still have trouble understanding the resistance to the Michael Bronski obit/article. Bronski had been involved in journalism for over 30 years when it was published. The info in it is grounded in decades of gay journalism. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- This would potentially be content for inside the article. The lead content would then be a reflection of what we think belongs in the article itself. As for Bronski, and other sources that only gave a sentence, or less, of content on this I’m following the guidance above, “I would actually avoid using any sources that are just dumbing down the history here to "Hay supported NAMBLA". Those are not useful because they are far more vague than we need to be.” Bronski had one sentence, “He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment, as when he consistently advocated the inclusion of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in gay-pride parades.” Looking at every reliable source there remains only two parades, eight years apart, so it’s hard to reconcile that with “consistently advocated”. Likewise “He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment”: Bronski was the only source to characterize this way, again we only have two parades; the 1986 one he seemingly was alone in the position, but in 1994 he was one of 150 LGBTQ activists and others that was protesting the group being banned. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe I need to explain some of the editing choices made, if reading through the above sections weren’t clear:
- The Hay quote, usually misrepresented—especially by right-wing and conservative bloggers—as him advocating for sexual contact with men and young teen boys, is omitted as we only have one primary source, NAMBLA itself.
- What is included is analysis of why Hay often shared his own story of when he was 14, where that quote was picked from, and had a positive gay sex experience with an older man.
- No mentions of Hay advocating for the group, or pedophilia by extension, are included as no reliable sources gave any evidence he did this. Of all the sources on Hay, the majority don’t mention this subject area at all. Those that do use only the briefest of mentions with the most credible citing his protesting the banning from two Pride parades: LA in 1986; and Stonewall 25 In 1994.
- Both parade episodes are included with explanations of why he protested their bans. Tellingly he was one of 150 LGBTQ activists on record for the 1994 protesting.
- The Hay quote, usually misrepresented—especially by right-wing and conservative bloggers—as him advocating for sexual contact with men and young teen boys, is omitted as we only have one primary source, NAMBLA itself.
Given the reliable sources available to now, and I’m happy to look at any others that may add to or change what is known, I think Wikipedia’s present content in the lead, and article is dreadfully sourced, and misrepresents Hay’s connection to this despised group. Additionally including Hay in the category of pedophile advocacy is wholly inaccurate. If Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia and not a click-bait tabloid then we should update the article accordingly. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- @MPS1992:, @Red Rock Canyon:, @Someguy1221:, I’d appreciate if you could look at the proposed content to see if the sourcing is reliable, NPOV, etc, and offer any changes, or any other sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Gleenanon, what you have done above in your proposed text is simply leave out the WP:RS sources that have the well-documented content that you don't like. Your sanitized version, describing what you believe were and were not Hay's motives, is not an improvement and is not encyclopedic. Additionally, in this discussion you have consistently misrepresented the sources, claiming reliable sources are not reliable simply because you do not like them, or claiming that sources don't exist when they do. When people have pointed this out, you simply ignore the corrections and keep misrepresenting the sources. This is a serious violation of policy and wikiquette. Posting a note up top that people do not need to read the full discussion, only your bits of it, is inappropriate, and by only pinging the people who you think might agree with you, you are treading very close to violating the WP:CANVASSING policy. As a number of people have already told you, reliable sourcing and writing with a neutral tone don't mean "never critical" and "never controversial". The fact Hay supported NAMBLA, spoke on their panels, carried their signs, cruised boys, is what it is. It's sourced. It was his choice. Downplaying what that means, or what NAMBLA is, is really not the answer. As Wikipedians, it is not our place to re-interpret or decide what his statements and actions really meant. We just document it. It's on Hay, not us. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- This entire process was needed because the POV and poorly sourced content was included in the article. Your again inviting me to leave it as is, or otherwise waiving me off isn’t helpful.
- If I had found any reliable source that did provide evidence he in any way was an advocate for NAMBLA, or by extension pedophilia, I would be obligated to include it, with due weight. I found none. Nor has anyone else thus far.
- I looked, and still welcome, any usable reliable sources that actually provide evidence for your many claims against Hay. Please note, that is not an invitation for you to post a list of sources, like you’ve done in the past, that have been listed already, but are considered primary, unreliable, or too vague to be of any help.
- If there is a source you think I’m misquoting, or otherwise misrepresenting, or an equally reliable source that should be used, that we haven’t already included, then please make it known here.
- I’ve amended the note at the very top, it was never my intention to mislead. I encourage anyone who’s willing to read the wall of texts to do so. It’s right there. Their conclusions might easily catch something I missed.
- I invited the uninvolved people in hopes they could help move the process forward. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Gleenanon, what you have done above in your proposed text is simply leave out the WP:RS sources that have the well-documented content that you don't like. Your sanitized version, describing what you believe were and were not Hay's motives, is not an improvement and is not encyclopedic. Additionally, in this discussion you have consistently misrepresented the sources, claiming reliable sources are not reliable simply because you do not like them, or claiming that sources don't exist when they do. When people have pointed this out, you simply ignore the corrections and keep misrepresenting the sources. This is a serious violation of policy and wikiquette. Posting a note up top that people do not need to read the full discussion, only your bits of it, is inappropriate, and by only pinging the people who you think might agree with you, you are treading very close to violating the WP:CANVASSING policy. As a number of people have already told you, reliable sourcing and writing with a neutral tone don't mean "never critical" and "never controversial". The fact Hay supported NAMBLA, spoke on their panels, carried their signs, cruised boys, is what it is. It's sourced. It was his choice. Downplaying what that means, or what NAMBLA is, is really not the answer. As Wikipedians, it is not our place to re-interpret or decide what his statements and actions really meant. We just document it. It's on Hay, not us. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hello. I am one of the "uninvolved people", also described as "the people who you think might agree with you". I am really tired of this whole dispute, but I do not promise to be coherent while I explain why. It seems to me that this Gleeanon fellow was just fixing a few things, while also being far too excited about fixing things a little too much, and then suddenly he tripped some tripwire whereby people who ever advocated that bad thing, had to be vilified, and anyone trying to prevent that had to be crushed. Well actually my grandfather was in the military, and indeed he found that if you crush something under your boot then it often does not rise up again. He gave me many wise pieces of advice. I have not read every single piece of evidence presented above about what every single reliable source said about every single thing that this Hay fellow said about anything. To do that, it is probably going to take me another few weeks, so I hope you are all very patient people. For the time being, it seems to me that this Gleeanon fellow has some legitimate concerns about the current (original) article, and that some other editors are going slightly apoplectic that he should challenge the existing article. As someone who is not any part of any of either scene, this maybe should be the time that I back off and leave you all to it. But actually I am going to ask you to do two things. (1) actually understand what each of you is saying to the other, and if you can't do that, (2) give me some time until I can finally be bothered to read the above proposal and work out what it's about and whether it's accurate or what. I would much prefer the first option. MPS1992 (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I opened a thread at WP:RSN to address sourcing in the lead’s first sentence, while this content for the article itself moves forward. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Update. I just today got a copy of: “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads” Hay, Harry. Gay Community News ; Boston Vol.20,Iss.3, (Fall 1994): 16. It’s the full text of his speech detailing why he, and apparently others, objected to ILGA and Stonewall 25, expelling NAMBLA or any other group that identified as gay/lesbian. The pdf is about six pages so it will take a bit of time to digest and hopefully distill into the proposed content.
I did omit at least one important facet in trying to express his views. He adamantly felt that queer youth worldwide were victimized by being forced into hetero identities dooming them into forms of despair. He felt this was the real molestation they faced.
He also connects Sen Jesse Helms move to defund the United Nations by discrediting ILGA via the pedophilia groups scandal; with his similar move 30 days later “amended an education bill on its way through the Senate by denying federal funds to any public school district that teaches homosexuality is a positive lifestyle alternative through class work, textbooks, or counseling. This language is so broad that even Project 10, a nationally known counseling program for Gay high school students, would be a key target of the ban.” Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- I’m still going over Hay’s own writing on the subject: “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads” Hay, Harry. Gay Community News ; Boston, Vol. 20, Iss.3, (Fall 1994): 16. Anyone can also get a copy by requesting it at WP:RX. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Update. I’ve opened a request at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests in hopes to resolve this and the other main tagged issue of the article. I’ll work on updating User:Gleeanon409/sandbox/Hay - nambla sourcing with Hay’s published speech on the subject. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
14 sources for a single statement
- Asking for editors' attention to this discussion: Talk:Racism in Poland#Molobo's changes
- The core question regards the Nazi approach towards the Poles: whether they planned a genocide, or had already started one. Scholarly sources, in general, tend to the former.
- One editor has been piling sources in support of the latter - 14 sources on a single statement in the lead,[7] most of which are either PRIMARY or irrelevant (ie. supporting the first statement rather than the second). My very last comment in that thread has a list of (almost) all of them, for your perusal. François Robere (talk) 10:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- See WP:REFBOMB and WP:OVERCITE. Ask for the single best sourcew, and if it doesn't satsify WP:V for our text, then there's a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- How in general would you deal with an evasive editor like that? He seems to be testing my patience. François Robere (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Behaviour is another matter, and not for this board. From a quick look there's a problem here that citations which are only in the lede are a warnign sign, since a lede is meant to summarize what is in the article body. However, it seems the statement being supported is not surprising. This topic should be covered in the article body, with decent sources (but not WP:OVERCITEd) and then simply summarized in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
TThank you Alexbrn, the Nuremberg Trials concluded that Nazis engaged in genocide of Poles and Jews, and this position is followed by scholars on the subject, in general the conclusions on Nazi atrocities by Nuremberg Trials aren't rejected(although there are aalways minority and revisionist views).Your suggestion to move ssources to main body where this is ddescribed seems like a good one.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- The trial records, as noted several times before, are "historical documents" per WP:PRIMARY, and shouldn't be used for historical interpretation.
- You have only presented two post-war scholarly sources that support your position, one of which is barely notable (with only one citation by tertiary sources). The rest of your 14-15 sources (16 counting the bibliography list quote) either PRIMARY, do not support that statement, or contradict it. François Robere (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree, none of the sources contradict it, and all of them support it. You would have to be more precise on what this contradiction is as I fail to see any, and you didn't elaborate on the subject--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- One can only hope ARBCOM enlightens you, having been made privy to all the facts yet again. In the meanwhile, do stay away from serious discussions. François Robere (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree, none of the sources contradict it, and all of them support it. You would have to be more precise on what this contradiction is as I fail to see any, and you didn't elaborate on the subject--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- This can happen when POV-pushers inist that no amount of sourcing is enough to support a statement they don't like. It can also happen when someone is quote-mining to support a position refuted by the vast majority of sources. No idea which it is here. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- When it comes to the type of historical sources that are ought to be used, the focus should be on parsing what the historiographical consensus amounts to. El_C 23:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @JzG and El C: Not asking you to make a judgment on content, worry not. In general, most sources agree that the Nazis had genocidal intent regarding the Poles, as adequately summarized (by yours truly) here (3rd par.). Most of Molobo's sources state that as well; the problem is he uses those sources to justify a different notion: that the Nazis had already started that genocide. This, in turn, is used to draw parallels with the systematic extermination of other groups, diminishing their tragedy, and for justifying wartime antisemitism (something also addressed by sources). Molobo quite clearly ascribes to this course of action,[8] as he demotes Jews and Roma to "second place" despite them being the Nazis' main targets even by the friendliest of his sources.[9] And then there's the poor sourcing, "cherry picking" and ignoring repeated calls to compromise, all of which are documented in that thread (and elsewhere [10][11][12]).
- So - what's next? Trimming to the one best source, as per Alexbrn? AFAICT Molobo only has two secondary RS supporting that statement, only one of which is notable (the other is definitely an RS, but is only cited once by tertiary sources). François Robere (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- This "genocided" change, putting Polish losses ahead of the Holocaust, with no explanation as to that prioritization, is indeed, highly problematic. El_C 16:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- ECL I clearly pointed out that Jews were targeted for immediate extermination in my edit[13] likewise if you follow FR’s false allegation and links you will see that I mentioned that Jews were targeted to be exterminated in 5 years while genocide of Poles was to take longer, around 15 years.
- Notable historians like Timothy Snyder or Yahuda Bauer have repeated that Poles faced genocide, this in line with ruling at Nuremberg Trials, and hardly any type of antisemitism.
- As to the article, note that it is about racism in Poland, not Holocaust-there is debate what shape should it take, feel free to contribute if you wish.I have nothing against polite discussion with scholarly sources provided.Again, nothing against mentioning that Jews were first targets of Nazi German genocide(in fact I even wrote an article about part of it Operation 1005 as long as we remember to include other victims of their racially inspired genocidal actions like Poles or Roma.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- "Faced"? Yes. As part of the Nazis' "grand design" for the "eastern territories", which never materialized. Not so for Jews, Roma, LGBTs, political and cultural elites, and the disabled, who faced immediate and expedient destruction in a purpose-built network of extermination camps, which were fed and operated by legions of dedicated SS and Gestapo officers and their collaborators. If you cannot make that distinction, then you shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia.
- What do you mean by
hardly any type of antisemitism
? Are we again going to have a discussion about Polish sources admitting antisemitism is so widespread that,[14] in the words of Irena Sendler, "it was easier to hide a tank under the carpet than shelter a Jew"? As to the article, note that it is about racism in Poland, not Holocaust
So why are you pushing so hard on the German treatment of Poles?there is debate what shape should it take
There is indeed,[15] and if we'll follow the community's opinion[16] then the article would look very different.Again, nothing against mentioning that Jews were first targets of Nazi German genocide
That's a lie.[17][18]
- Very unfortunate. François Robere (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's a lie Actually it was me who added to the article's lead part stating with Jews targeted for immediate extermination [19], so yes I have nothing against mentioning the fact that Jews were first victims of Nazi German genocide. And in fact in your very link I mention that they were to be exterminated by Nazis in 5 years, whereas Polish genocide was to take longer time(around 15 years).I do however stated that since the article is about Racism in Poland and not Holocaust(although it obviously should be part of it too) the first description should be regarding the largest ethnic group that suffered from racism in history of Poland.
- So why are you pushing so hard on the German treatment of Poles? Because racism towards Poles was especially drastic during periods of German control over Poland.
- What do you mean by
hardly any type of antisemitism
? Are we again going to have a discussion about Polish sources admitting antisemitism is so widespread that You seem totally confused as to my statement, which is simply stating fact that mentioning genocide of Poles or Roma is hardly antisemitism. - "Faced"? Yes. As part of the Nazis' "grand design" for the "eastern territories", which never materialized. Not so for Jews, Roma, LGBTs, political and cultural elites, and the disabled, who faced immediate and expedient destruction in a purpose-built network of extermination camps, which were fed and operated by legions of dedicated SS and Gestapo officers and their collaborators. If you cannot make that distinction, then you shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia.
Historians like Timothy Snyder,Norman Naimark, states that Poles were victims of Genocide, author of genocide definition Rapheael Lemkin states so as well Timothy Snyder: When the Germans shot tens of thousands of Poles in 1944, with the intention of making sure that Warsaw would never rise again, that was genocide, too. Far less dramatic measures, such as the kidnapping and Germanisation of Polish children, were also, by the legal definition, genocide. Norman Naimark Genocide: A World History Hitler's genocidal policies in Poland were directed both at the Poles and at the Jews.
This is in line with verdict at Nuremberg Trials and Polish genocide trials that stated:The policy of extermination was in the first place directed against the Jewish and Polish nations. This criminal organization did not reject any means of furthering their aim at destroying the Jewish nation. The wholesale extermination of Jews and also of Poles had all the characteristics of genocide in the biological meaning of this term[20](Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals Selected and prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission)they conducted deliberate and systematic genocide, viz., the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others. I am not really sure what you are trying to argue here.That historians like Snyder or Neimark shoudn't edit Wikipedia? That Lemkin was wrong? That Nuremberg Trials should be questioned? Denying that genocide of Poles by Nazis took place, which unfortunately seems like you are doing(you are free to correct me on this if I am wrong and I will delete this if I am indeed wrong about your intentions) Anyway, this is not the place for personal theories. Both legal authorities and historians agree on genocidal policies and actions of Nazi Germany against both Jews(who of course were treated much more severely, nobody denies this here) and ethnic Poles. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually it was me who added to the article's lead part
Yes, after I forced you to,[21] after four days of discussion.Because racism towards Poles was especially drastic during periods of German control over Poland
, Oh, and Jews? But you're perfectly content pushing Jews out because "this isn't about the Holocaust".- Timothy Snyder only states that for specific events, in a reply to two other notable historians - Efraim Zuroff and Dovid Katz - who disagree with him. This alone should show you how controversial your claim is.
- Naimark states that about Polish elites, which is again something we both agree on. It's terrible, but it's not the systematic extermination of a nation in extermination camps.
- Lemkin's book is from 1944, and before you claim that its 2012 republishing is "perfectly valid"[22] because he's "a valued scholar",[23] note that he passed away some 60 years ago, so his book is probably somewhat dated.
- So again you're in a spot where only two of your (now) 16-17 sources are thorough, recent RS that (seem) to support the notion of a Holocaust-scale genocide (one of which, though, was only cited once), with several others mentioning specific campaigns - eg. against Polish intelligentsia - which I tried to represent in my revision as well.[24] Would you like at this point to suggest an alternative formulation?
- As for your last question: I oppose poor sourcing, and I reject the "zero sum" mentality of nations' suffering. Had you provided a couple of good discourses on the subject we'd be fine, but as it is you've provided a whole lot of "cherry picks", dated sources and popular reading books, all the while shuffling around sections on Poles and Jews and insisting that "religious antisemitism isn't racism". This is all damaging to Wikipedia, and the nice façade you're putting up for our fellow editors doesn't hide the fact it took two weeks (!) getting there. (François Robere (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's terrible, but it's not the systematic extermination of a nation in extermination camps. We state it was genocide, and you simply refuse to acknowledge what genocide is, as per UN Genocide Convention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as
- ... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- a) Killing members of the group;
- (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
All of the above applies to treatment of Poles under Nazi Occupation, which Nuremberg Trials recognized for example:
a)Operation Tannenberg,AB-Aktion or e)Kidnapping_of_Polish_children_by_Germany
So again you're in a spot where only two of your (now) 16-17 sources are thorough RS that seem to support the notion of a Holocaust-scale genocide Incorrect. All the sources state that Nazis carried out genocide against Poles. You are now changing the goal posts however, because you now changed your phrasing to Holocaust-scale genocide,which the article doesn't state, a genocide doesn't have to be on a scale of Holocaust to be defined as one, and I have already stated numerous times that Jews of cource were treated more severely. I think the issue we are having here is that you are unware that genocide isn't restricted to Holocaust and that actually it has a broader definition than you believe it does. But you're perfectly content pushing Jews out because "this isn't about the Holocaust" I haven't removed any information about Holocaust from the article. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
per UN Genocide Convention
But we're not in a position to state where it applies - that's WP:OR.All the sources state that Nazis carried out genocide against Poles
"Carried" or "planned"? Again, we've addressed it before.You are now changing the goal posts
I'm not, I'm just reading through your own comments, on that page and elsewhere.I think the issue we are having here
You've already made that statement and I already replied.[25] This is about poor sourcing, marginalization of minorities, and WP:GAMING.I haven't removed any information about Holocaust from the article
No, you just pushed it down, along with some statements...[26][27]- So again - would you like to suggest an alternative formulation for the text? François Robere (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- But we're not in a position to state where it applies - that's WP:OR That's why we use scholarly sources and verdicts of Nuremberg Trials, so far you are the one using OR, I have presented over dozen of sources in the article.
- :
All the sources state that Nazis carried out genocide against Poles
"Carried" or "planned"? Again, we've addressed it before.
I am pretty sure Nazis did mass murder Poles in AB Aktion and kidnapped over 200,000 Polish children. Are you saying this didn't happen? And as Nuremberg trial states They conducted deliberate and systematic genocide, viz., the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others. This is about poor sourcing, marginalization of minorities, and WP:GAMING.There are more than 10 sources, all of them of great value and scholarly that confirm the obvious-genocide of Nazis against Jews, Poles and Roma.The section on Jewish minority currently is far bigger than the section on Poles who were larger group affected by racism.
- No, you just pushed it down As I said, I haven't removed anything about treatment of Jews.Unlike your persistent removal of information about genocide of Poles by Nazis.
- So again - would you like to suggest an alternative formulation for the text?If you have any ideas then feel free to present them on the talk page. The information about Nazi genocide of Jews,Poles and Roma is solidly sourced by more than 10 sources, most of them scholarly including highly reputable historians, we also have verdicts from Nuremberg Trials and Polish genocide trials.I see no reason for removal of information that Nazis carried out genocide of Jews, Poles and Roma-it is a basic historic fact.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC) --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but this is just a load of dishonesty and ignorance. Molobo brings a legal definition; I say we can't use it (it'll be OR), and he deflects to other sources. I ask what the other sources say, and he elaborates on his opinion. I cite Policy on primary sources (trial transcripts being "historical documents" etc.), and he carries on as if it doesn't exist. I bring diffs of him removing sources on antisemitism, and he says "I haven't removed anything about treatment of Jews". It's lies, obfuscation, and inability to admit a mistake. After another editor noticed he miss-cited a source,[28] he went ahead and corrected himself retrospectively.[29] Yet he continues to "research by Google", as one admin put it, resulting in poor and misleading sourcing: a national trial is presented as an international tribunal; a popular book as academic; a 1944 book as up-to-date; a bibliographical list as a source. He will quote one paragraph that seems to support his statement, but ignore the very next or previous one that contradicts it. And then he preaches, in a most condescending manner, something completely wrong: that Prussia - 18th century Prussia - was part of Poland.[30] That's WP:TROLLING right there.
- And there you have it, in a nutshell. François Robere (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Here is Yehuda Bauer on the matter. It was a genocide, even if it didn't involve "total annihilation" as was the German intent with regard to Jews. I hope that settles it, because if you keep on insisting on your own idiosyncratic position here then it becomes clear that you're arguing against some of the most notable and established Holocaust scholars out there. In other words, you're way out in WP:FRINGE land.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Accusations of "WP:TROLLING" is a very serious personal attack, especially since clearly that is not at all what's going on. What makes it worse is that your characterization of MMA's statement (FR's version:"Something completely wrong: that Prussia - 18th century Prussia - was part of Poland") is just false. I don't see anything about 18th century Prussia in there. Perhaps you're unaware that "Prussia" generally refers to a region rather than a political entity? If so, that's understandable, but in no way does it excuse your attacks on another editor and the accusations of "trolling".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- The original posting on article talk page and this thread strike me as WP:TE behavior by user François Robere. I think a topic ban is in order. My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- You neglected to mention your involvement in both the article, the topic area in the general, and the ARBCOM case (where I put a link to this discussion) - lest anyone thinks you just hopped over to offer a T-ban (that's a bit radical, isn't it?) out of the kindness of your heart. François Robere (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
In addition to falsely accusing another editor of "trolling" (when it's clearly a content dispute), Francois Robere makes some false statements about sources above. He also tends to set up a lot of strawman. Sometimes at the same time. For example:
Naimark states that about Polish elites (...) It's terrible, but it's not the systematic extermination of a nation in extermination camps.
<-- Actually that's not true. Naimark does NOT say the "genocidal intentions" were aimed only at the Polish elites. FR just made that part up. Naimark clearly states: Hitler's genocidal policies in Poland were directed both at the Poles and Jews. It kind of can't get clearer than that [31]. As to the second part ("but it's not the systematic extermination of a nation in extermination camps") yeah, it's not. But nobody claimed it was. It could've been a genocide - indeed sources say it was - WITHOUT the use of extermination camps. There have been many genocides in history without death camps. This is Francois Robere setting up the strawman.
- The attacks on another editor, combined with the shenanigans with sources and the misrepresentations of other editor's statements just to win a dispute (WP:BATTLEGROUND), do merit a sanction in this case.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually that's not true. Naimark does NOT say [that]
Naimark, there (2nd ed.), p. 78: "Hitler’s genocidal policies in Poland were directed both at the Poles and at the Jews. At the outset of the occupation, in Operation Tannenberg, the Nazis identified some 60,000 leading Polish politicians, clergymen, teachers, lawyers, writers, and other prominent members of the Polish elite for arrest and elimination. The idea was to decapitate the Polish nation and force the remainder of the population into a subservient role as denationalized helots in the service of the Third Reich. Some Polish children were taken as “Aryans” to the Reich to be raised as Germans." (emphasis for readability purposes)nobody claimed it was
As always, you're missing the point, and with a splendid "straw man" of your own. I trust that every reasonable editor can read past it, so I won't dwell on it further. I will remind you, though, that Molobo claimed at least twice that Poles (as a nation) should be considered Holocaust victims,[32][33] which is most certainly not a view shared by RS (you're familiar with Gutman and Krakowski's Unequal Victims: Poles and Jews During World War Two (1988)). Top that with his current fight to put Poles - a 90%-97% majority - at the top of Racism in Poland, possibly pushing out expressions of antisemitism and Islamophobia, and you end up with a nasty fight to remake the entire article from a particular ethnocentric POV. François Robere (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)- FR, please stop. What Naimark says is:
Hitler’s genocidal policies in Poland were directed both at the Poles and at the Jews
. That's about as clear as it gets. Killing off the "politicians, clergymen, teachers, lawyers, writers" is PART OF a genocide. As is the kidnapping of children. You're trying to flip the argument on its head. "If elites are killed it's not genocide!". How does that makes sense? There's no "ONLY" there - that is the part you've invented yourself. And it says "genocidal policies at Poles" black on white, crystal clear, as straightforward as it gets. And then *you* accuse others of original research? Seriously? - We also have Yehuda Bauer on the topic [34], one of the most prominent Holocaust scholars out there. Bauer explicitly says that the Nazi policies against Poles were genocidal, although did not involve "total annihilation" as the policies against Jews did. But something doesn't have to involve "total annihilation" to be a genocide (in Bauer's view that's what makes the Holocaust unique - it was MORE than a genocide). He also explicitly says that the policies against Poles fit Lemkin's definition of genocide (which he accepts) which should put to rest your false claim that Mymoloboaccount is doing original research when he mentions the Nuremberg Trials (MMA did cite Bauer as source, which you ignored)
- You really also need to stop grossly misrepresenting Mymoloboaccount's edits. Especially since this has been explained to you already so you can't plead that your false statements are made from ignorance or misunderstanding. MMA is NOT "pushing out expressions of antisemitism and Islamophobia". That's nonsense - afaict he hasn't removed a single thing about these issues from the article. Likewise, MMA reordered the listing of the victims [35] to put Holocaust first.
- And NONE of these disputes makes it ok for you to label another editors' comments "TROLLING" or to engage in personal attacks against them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, Molobo reordered the list two weeks into the discussion, and after I brought it up on three different venues including ARBCOM? Well then, I retract everything bad I ever said about the guy. If I knew he would be so amenable to compromise, I would've dropped the discussion and went straight for the Arbs.
- Everything else was already thoroughly explained above, including regarding antisemitism and Islamophobia. If you had read the discussion, you would've seen links to several threads[36][37][38][39] and diffs[40][41] that show exactly that.
- As for Bauer - I don't know how you read his book, but he denies ever claiming the Holocaust was "unique".[42]
NONE of these disputes makes it ok... to engage in personal attacks
I generally agree that we should be generous interpreting others' intentions, AGF and avoid "casting aspersions". I also notice that you've been paying much more attention to these things since the ARBCOM case concluded. Maybe, after a year and a half, we can finally agree on etiquette, if little else. François Robere (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- FR, please stop. What Naimark says is:
- Indeed, Naimark clearly tells it was genocide of Polish nation. Eliminating the cultural elites is the hallmark of many genocides of the worst kind. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- One should note that this question - of whether Nazi atrocities towards Polish (or Slavs in general) civilians constituted genocide has been discussed extensively in secondary (and tertiary) sources. There is no need here to use PRIMARY statements or even idiosyncratic works by scholars - as the field itself is summarized. One should also note the presence of government efforts around this in recent years - e.g. Polish minister says backs idea to create 'Polocaust' museum, Reuters, Projecting Poland and its past: Poland wants you to talk about the “Polocaust”, Index on Censorship - which should cause us to take pause here. As for reliable secondary sources who review the literature at large - The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, By Donald L. Niewyk, Francis R. Nicosia, page 49-50 have an excellent overview of the topic (Polish & Soviet civilians) - presenting the majority view first (not a genocide/part of Holocaust) followed by the minority view (at least one of them no stranger to controversy for his writings - [43]). Niewyk&Nicosia do not include Polish & Soviet civilians in their own conclusion. In any case it is quite evident that in terms of scope of coverage, atrocities towards Polish civilians (excluding Jews, Roma, gays, disabled, etc. - groups targeted by the Nazis for specific reasons) - are given much less weight in reliable sources. Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- The following are also relevant:
- Bilewicz, M., & Stefaniak, A. (2013). Can a victim be responsible? AntiSemitic consequences of victimhood-based identity and competitive victimhood in Poland. In B. Bokus (Ed.), Responsibility: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 69–77). Warszawa, Poland: Lexem is also relevant. Quote:
"Similar statements were often made by other political leaders who denied the uniqueness of the Holocaust in order to present their own nations as unique victims of historical atrocities and to deny the historical cruelties perpetrated by ingroup members. Thus, perception of ingroup victimhood serves as a strategy that allows for denial of responsibility"
, and"Polish participants who felt that their nation was especially victimized throughout history or victimized more than Jews, tended to believe more strongly in a Jewish conspiracy and their attitudes toward Jews were more negative."
.
- Bilewicz, M., & Stefaniak, A. (2013). Can a victim be responsible? AntiSemitic consequences of victimhood-based identity and competitive victimhood in Poland. In B. Bokus (Ed.), Responsibility: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 69–77). Warszawa, Poland: Lexem is also relevant. Quote:
- The following are also relevant:
- Gross, Magdalena H. "To teach the Holocaust in Poland: understanding teachers’ motivations to engage the painful past." Intercultural Education 24.1-2 (2013): 103-120.
"the research found that individual Jews and the general Jewish population were stereotyped or Polonized, while the Holocaust was cited as part of an overall Nazi policy to destroy non-Jewish Poles. Thus, Jewish victims were, by and large, folded into the story of Polish victimhood"
- Wóycicka, Zofia. "Global patterns, local interpretations: new Polish museums dedicated to the rescue of Jews during the Holocaust." Holocaust Studies 25.3 (2019): 248-272.
"The current PiS government pursues a very aggressive and nationalistic policy of commemoration, stressing Polish victimhood, innocence and heroism"
- Lobont, Florin. "Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial in Post-Communist Eastern Europe." The Historiography of the Holocaust. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2004. 440-468.:
" Poland is at the forefront of this process, all distortions leading to a wide- spread self-depiction of the Polish ethnic community as the main victim of the Holocaust, a portrayal supported by the myth of historical tolerance of the Jews in Poland
. - Kucia, Marek. "Auschwitz as a symbol of martyrdom of the polish nation, 1947 and 2017." Holocaust Studies (2019): 1-12. -
"Yet in Poland, a country where ethno-nationalism has always been strong and that became almost mono-ethnically Polish after the war, the phrase ‘the Polish Nation and other Nations’ like the word ‘nation’ was understood largely in the ethnic sense. A consequence was that the Jews – the largest category of Auschwitz deportees, prisoners, and victims – were listed last in official Polish publications as the Polish word for them (Żydzi) begins with the last letter of the alphabet. More importantly, regardless of whether the word ‘nation’ was understood in the civic or ethnic sense, the phrase ‘martryrdom of the Polish Nation and other Nations’ placed the suffering and death of the Poles first, above the victimhood of others. This was a legal rendering of what Jonathan Huener called ‘a Polish-national martyrological idiom’ that was characteristic of Poland’s postwar commemorative vocabulary in general and in reference to Auschwitz in particular."
. ....", at present Auschwitz as a symbol of martyrdom of the Polish nation essentially means that the Poles (in either meaning) were the first to suffer and die at the camp, and their suffering and death marked the beginning of Auschwitz and other Nazi camps and victimhood of all other groups."
.
- Gross, Magdalena H. "To teach the Holocaust in Poland: understanding teachers’ motivations to engage the painful past." Intercultural Education 24.1-2 (2013): 103-120.
- While the perception/promotion of "Polish victimhood" is definitely a study topic (and actual keyword used in journal articles), it is not the normal manner most historical texts are organized on the subject.Icewhiz (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is classic Straw man argument by Icewhiz. Of course the genocidal "policies" by Nazi with respect to Jews were worse than their genocidal policies with respect to other ethnic groups. No one (I mean participants of this discussion) ever disputed this. Yes, sure, the Holocaust was campaign by Nazi to exterminate Jews. No one disputes this. However, according to the cited sources, the campaign by Nazi to exterminate Poles and other Slavs (millions died as a matter of fact) was a genocide. Saying that murder of Slavs by Nazi was a genocide is not an antisemitism and not a "Holocaust Denial" as Icewhiz is trying to misrepresent here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oh? Why, at least one rather vocal participant here, has been placing Poles on the top of Racism in Poland - as the primary victim of racism in Poland. Whereas in most (or perhaps all?) "Racism in X" the ingroup is either absent or with a very small mention - in Poland - and counter to most sources covering Poland - Poles are placed on top in an on-going edit-war. As for whether Poles (or Soviet citizens - similar discussion) were the target of genocide in WWII - per Niewyk&Nicosia - opinions among scholars differ. Icewhiz (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed this when I added the subject line, but this is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messiah ben Joseph (LDS Church) with NPOV and NOR issues cited as the reason. I came here because of this: "Ancient ancestral prophecies concerning the House of Joseph (many of them, according to Latter-day Saints, now 'restored' through Joseph Smith from their lost or 'corrupted' state)[1].[2] center upon what some members and scholars of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in recent decades, have come to view as a messianic figure at the core of those prophecies — an 'anointed one' of Jewish tradition and legend who is variously called 'Messiah ben Joseph' or 'Messiah ben Ephraim'.[3][4][5] I took this to the talk page and User:Chauvelin2000 gave what to me is an unsatisfactory explanation, although I admit I'm not sure I understand it. Doug Weller talk 06:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Across all 136 notes and references in that article, there is not a single one that is both A) actually about the topic of the article; and B) a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- All references are accurate, address precisely what is being referred to, and come from reputable scholars — both LDS and non-LDS — all leaders in their fields. My explanation directly answered Doug's question, as the article is a presentation of the collective Ben Joseph scholarship published by scholars within the LDS Church Educational System (CES) only (the focus of this article), as these compare with the ancient Jewish Ben Joseph writings and as applied specifically to Joseph Smith. Your question was if the Ben Joseph study field was 'specific to Latter-day Saints' and didn't extend to the 'wider' Latter Day Saint movement; I answered you precisely and accurately, that to date only LDS scholars have published books or articles that directly address Messiah ben Joseph, because scholars in other 'break-off' groups from the original LDS church movement have not contributed in any published form to this area of study. All references in the article are verifiable and accurate. This article, it must be noted, pertains only to published LDS (CES) scholarship as it bears on its objects of comparative study — Ben Joseph with Joseph Smith — as these studies have been carried out by these scholars, hence the "(LDS Church)" designation. All sources are absolutely reliable, and the published book/article citations that directly focus on the Ben Joseph legendary figure as he compares with the historical figure of Joseph Smith are all, in fact, by respected LDS scholars in their fields and experts on the topic — and it is a collective presentation of their comparative, peer-reviewed Ben Joseph studies based on the Jewish traditions and writings that this article is about. Citing their works, therefore, is both germane and critical to this article. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- It might help your case to present some non LDS sources for the LDS version of this figure.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- The LDS sources for the LDS version of Ben Joseph are therein cited. Among the CES scholars having published specifically about Ben Joseph as he compares to Joseph Smith are Matthew B. Brown, Truman G. Madsen, Joseph Fielding McConkie, Trevan G. Hatch. The article is a collective presentation of their findings and published studies and reflects a legitimate area of CES peer-reviewed study. The article represents a synthesis of this comparative study from LDS scholars: the objects of comparison being, the legendary Messiah ben Joseph (for which many key non-LDS sources are cited, all reputable) and the American religious founder Joseph Smith (for which the published LDS sources are cited). Please also refer to the article's Talk Page for a clear description of the issues in proper and accurate context. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I shall ask again, do any non LDS sources discus this idea? I do not care if LDS sources do, I want to know if this has had any impact or notability outside the LDS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- As the article represents strictly the comparative studies of CES scholars of the Ben Joseph figure to a personality singular to their faith and religion, non-LDS scholars would not have published about Joseph Smith. This LDS article (like the Jewish article for 'Messiah ben Joseph' and its own Jewish research) concerns only the published research of LDS Church scholars who have compared Smith to Ben Joseph's legendary and prophetic characteristics; it purports only to be LDS scholarship and assessment as it applies to Joseph Smith — in identical fashion to the Jewish rabbis who have their own self-referencing historical models, which rely on no other 'outside' assessments but their own in the reality of their presentation of Ben Joseph and his Jewish historical 'counterparts', for they are simply presenting their comparative assessment — their best (what can only be) guesses — of that figure with their own internal historical religious/military/etc personalities. The LDS Church article does precisely the same type of comparison, and thus presents the scholarship only of LDS researchers familiar with both Joseph Smith and the Ben Joseph figure. The article does not profess to be anything beyond this: it is a review of the reality of comparative Messiah Ben Joseph-to-Joseph Smith assessments, published studies by Latter-day Saint scholars — their 'take' (like the Jewish 'take') on the Ben Joseph figure. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's pretty clearly heading towards deletion. I don't think this editor understands our policies and guidelines as I see similar problems in the declined draft Draft:Cosmic Covenant. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please be specific in what you are referring to in the Ben Joseph article in question. I will address the concern. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's hard to be specific because literally everything is concerning. The article is about "Messiah Ben Joseph - the LDS concept". You don't appear to have any reliable, independent, secondary sources about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- The idea of Messiah ben Joseph in history and its applicability to real historical figures cannot be claimed as a monopoly by Jewish students. If the LDS article's contemporary sources are not found to be 'independent, secondary' or 'reliable', then neither can the Jewish Ben Joseph page's contemporary 'in house' sources be deemed reliable — nor can its own 'guesses' about who historically fulfills the legendary characterization of Ben Joseph. Though both the LDS and Jewish pages are sourced in ancient documents, the Jewish Ben Joseph page's modern sources, too, are published by same-faith scholars.
- It's hard to be specific because literally everything is concerning. The article is about "Messiah Ben Joseph - the LDS concept". You don't appear to have any reliable, independent, secondary sources about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please be specific in what you are referring to in the Ben Joseph article in question. I will address the concern. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's pretty clearly heading towards deletion. I don't think this editor understands our policies and guidelines as I see similar problems in the declined draft Draft:Cosmic Covenant. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- As the article represents strictly the comparative studies of CES scholars of the Ben Joseph figure to a personality singular to their faith and religion, non-LDS scholars would not have published about Joseph Smith. This LDS article (like the Jewish article for 'Messiah ben Joseph' and its own Jewish research) concerns only the published research of LDS Church scholars who have compared Smith to Ben Joseph's legendary and prophetic characteristics; it purports only to be LDS scholarship and assessment as it applies to Joseph Smith — in identical fashion to the Jewish rabbis who have their own self-referencing historical models, which rely on no other 'outside' assessments but their own in the reality of their presentation of Ben Joseph and his Jewish historical 'counterparts', for they are simply presenting their comparative assessment — their best (what can only be) guesses — of that figure with their own internal historical religious/military/etc personalities. The LDS Church article does precisely the same type of comparison, and thus presents the scholarship only of LDS researchers familiar with both Joseph Smith and the Ben Joseph figure. The article does not profess to be anything beyond this: it is a review of the reality of comparative Messiah Ben Joseph-to-Joseph Smith assessments, published studies by Latter-day Saint scholars — their 'take' (like the Jewish 'take') on the Ben Joseph figure. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I shall ask again, do any non LDS sources discus this idea? I do not care if LDS sources do, I want to know if this has had any impact or notability outside the LDS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- The LDS sources for the LDS version of Ben Joseph are therein cited. Among the CES scholars having published specifically about Ben Joseph as he compares to Joseph Smith are Matthew B. Brown, Truman G. Madsen, Joseph Fielding McConkie, Trevan G. Hatch. The article is a collective presentation of their findings and published studies and reflects a legitimate area of CES peer-reviewed study. The article represents a synthesis of this comparative study from LDS scholars: the objects of comparison being, the legendary Messiah ben Joseph (for which many key non-LDS sources are cited, all reputable) and the American religious founder Joseph Smith (for which the published LDS sources are cited). Please also refer to the article's Talk Page for a clear description of the issues in proper and accurate context. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- It might help your case to present some non LDS sources for the LDS version of this figure.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Latter-day Saints claim to be predominantly of the House of Joseph; this LDS orthodox belief alone should afford a validity to the right of its own scholars' collective perception of the Josephite-messiah figure that is at least equal to that of the messianic students of the Jewish faith, of the House of Judah. The LDS scholarly perception of that legendary messianic figure is, moreover, one that is uniform and consistent in a single historical figure. Such a perception does not mirror the multiple fractured guesses — and that is all that a historical application of the figure can be — as they exist on the Jewish Ben Joseph page. The rabbinical presentation of Ben Joseph is likewise without 'independent', corroborating, 'secondary' sources for its multiple versions or various interpretations of the Messiah ben Joseph figure.
- The LDS published scholarship exists. It's real. It happened. It was produced by respected scholars in their fields. The article on Ben Joseph in LDS scholarship is no different in principle than the article on Ben Joseph in Jewish scholarship. Both articles are well-founded (and duly cited) in the ancient sources; but neither can either claim to be orthodox in its legendary subject's application to historical guesses. The contemporary research of both is based on 'in house' published research. If one article is eliminated, then both should be. Otherwise, one is left with an almost palpable detection of negative religious bias, which an LDS Talk Page commentator noticed earlier in comments made. The principles of both pages' faith-based presentations, the ancient sources each utilizes, their contemporary published research are very much the same and should not be differentiated by any such biased distinction. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- If you will look at Messiah ben Joseph, you will notice that the sources are not ancient religious documents. They are modern academic studies. That is how we write about religious subjects. It does not matter if the subjects are comparable. The sources are not. You would help yourself by compiling a list of everything you think is a good source for this subject. These must be sources that discuss the LDS concept of Messiah ben Joseph. Sources that discuss the Jewish concept or other LDS concepts are not helpful for demonstrating that notability exists or neutrality is possible. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- I was referring to the ancient primary source documents both Ben Joseph articles reference, and also that the 'modern academic studies' that the rabbinical page references are also Jewish-faith studies. The LDS studies that you inquire about, all published by LDS Church Educational System (CES) professors, which are studies that directly concern "Messiah ben Joseph" and simultaneously address Joseph Smith as corresponding specifically to that legendary figure are:
- If you will look at Messiah ben Joseph, you will notice that the sources are not ancient religious documents. They are modern academic studies. That is how we write about religious subjects. It does not matter if the subjects are comparable. The sources are not. You would help yourself by compiling a list of everything you think is a good source for this subject. These must be sources that discuss the LDS concept of Messiah ben Joseph. Sources that discuss the Jewish concept or other LDS concepts are not helpful for demonstrating that notability exists or neutrality is possible. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- McConkie, Joseph F. (1980). His Name Shall Be Joseph: Ancient Prophecies of the Latter-day Seer. Salt Lake City, Utah: Hawkes Publishing. ISBN 978-0890361528.
- Brown, Matthew B. (2000). All Things Restored: Evidences and Witnesses of the Restoration. American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications. pp. 37–68.
- Hatch, Trevan G. (2007). "Messiah ben Joseph: Jewish Traditions and Legends of a Latter-day Restorer". Selections from the Religious Education Student Symposium, 2007. Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center. pp. 37–56.
- Madsen, Truman (1989). Joseph Smith the Prophet. Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft. pp. 97–108.
- McConkie, Joseph F. (1984). "Joseph Smith as Found in Ancient Manuscripts". Isaiah and the Prophets: Inspired Voices from the Old Testament. Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center. pp. 11–31.
- Skousen, W. Cleon (1997) [1964]. The Third Thousand Years. Salt Lake City, Utah: Ensign Publishing. Originally published by Bookcraft. ISBN 978-0934364249.
References
- ^ Madsen, Truman (1989). Joseph Smith the Prophet. Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft.
- ^ Bushman, Richard Lyman (2005). Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling — A Cultural Biography of Mormonism's Founder. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-1400042708.
- ^ McConkie, Joseph F. (1984). "Joseph Smith as Found in Ancient Manuscripts". Isaiah and the Prophets: Inspired Voices from the Old Testament. Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center. pp. 11–31.
- ^ Brown, Matthew B. (2000). All Things Restored: Evidences and Witnesses of the Restoration. American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications.
- ^ Hatch, Trevan G. (2007). "Messiah ben Joseph: Jewish Traditions and Legends of a Latter-day Restorer". Selections from the Religious Education Student Symposium, 2007. Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center. pp. 37–56.
Awesome, now, if you were only allowed to use those six sources, what would the article look like, and how would it be different from Messiah ben Joseph? (Not asking you to write it, btw, just basic outline.) Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't use those sources only, nor would one want to. A foundational base is used of the primary sources, as on the rabbinical page, to give context for the topic and foundational understanding for the reader. The LDS sources are introduced next to present the Ben Joseph idea in history as LDS scholars interpret its central Josephite figure and that character's applicability, as they collectively view it, to the modern-day Josephite restorer Joseph Smith. The article departs, as it should, from the primary sources, to give the LDS scholars' perception of the historical fulfillment of the Ben Joseph character, as the modern rabbinical scholars similarly do for their various applications of the legend to real historical figures. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- The article does not have to restrict itself to those six sources. The reason I asked the question is that I find it a useful, if not essentially exercise in writing a neutral article. This is because, by definition, the neutral point of view is the one that is guided by secondary sources. The secondary sources should plot the outline of the article and dictate its tone, and primary sources to fill in details. If you strip out everything but the best sources, we can figure out not only whether the article complies with NPOV, but also whether it makes any conclusions that would be considered original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Each of the sections and sub-sections of the first half of the article are based on the primary sources of the Ben Joseph legends and Jewish writings, with each sub-section sentence supported by modern commentary by published Ben Joseph scholars like King, Greenstone, Montgomery, Odeberg, Ginzberg, Torrey, Klausner, Scholem, Patai, Cohn-Sherbok, Mitchell. The article's second half then introduces the applicability of the Ben Joseph figure to the historical religious founder Joseph Smith, as per the collective scholarly consensus of the body of CES scholars referred to above, with each sub-section sentence likewise supported by the modern commentary of these scholars, who uniformly tie the Ben Joseph writings and various aspects of his character (as reflected in the sub-section headings) to a corresponding characteristic of Joseph Smith as defined and delineated by that LDS-CES scholarship, while also referencing back at times to the first section's primary sources and secondary scholarship to assist the reader's understanding in general of the Ben Joseph figure. Every sentence of each 'second half' sub-section is a summary-synthesis of scholarship by LDS educators and is supported by both primary and secondary source citations dealing with both 'General' and 'LDS' Ben Joseph scholarship. The Ben Joseph 'applicability' to Joseph Smith, as defined by these LDS educators in their published works, represents the consensus of LDS scholarship-to-date about Messiah ben Joseph, confirmed in each clausal citation and note; reflects similar legend-to-history applicability as employed by the rabbinic Wiki-article on Ben Joseph, but in an LDS-Josephite context; and does not include nor represent original scholarship by non-experts in this messianic field of LDS study. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Asking for your opinion in a RfC
I issued a RfC almost a month ago. As one of the main arguments concerns POV related issues, may I ask your kind contribution fellow wikipedians? Talk:EOKA#Request for Comment. Cinadon36 19:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Cinadon36:, I suggest that talk page gets archiving in place. I found it too big to access. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Gleeanon409: done 255,918 bytes removed. Cinadon36 12:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Sonya Spence (Jamaican singer)
I searched for articles or something about this wonderful singer, even though dead, it will still be great to see some information about her.
Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.199.69 (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I searched under Sonia and Sonya, and didn’t find much easily available. You might ask at the WP:REFDESK. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Dr. Albert K. Chin
I recently published an article on behalf of Dr. Chin, and it flagged for speedy deletion. The editor ( Praxidicae ) has been playing power games by responding to my questions with more questions and not clearly stating what violations need to be corrected. Can an admin review, and help me to resolve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCDLLC (talk • contribs) 01:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oh please. "Power games"--your article is a terrible piece of fluff. I am an admin, and I am telling you that nothing that contains language like "Chin’s dream of a medical degree was hampered by one reality..." will get into Wikipedia, where we write neutral material that's verified by reliable, secondary sources. If you would start by taking out the "musically inclined" and the squirt gun, we might get somewhere. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet
A massive percentage of Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet was written by User:Arbil44, who claims to be a descendant.
I already trimmed out some blatantly POV insertions, but the rest of the page is extremely long for a man who was a minor noble, and the entire Images section doesn't seem like it should be there.
Can someone with a better understanding of policy have a look?
74.70.146.1 (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I will take a look at what has been culled from this page when I can. Right now I am busy working with colleagues in America to bring history-changing information to Wikipedia users and the wider community. Charles Asgill was at the centre of the United States's first international diplomatic incident in 1782, known as The Asgill Affair, involving George Washington and Queen Marie Antoinette. This places him as considerably more than a minor noble. Take a look at the further reading section, if it is still intact, to see that several plays were written about him. Signing off as Arbil44 in case I cannot get the approved system to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbil44 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Again, as a claimed descendant of his, you are quite biased and shouldn't be editing the page like that.74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am more concerned over the implication of OR.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I trimmed a decent amount of OR and encyclopedic text out, but again, I'm not very good at this. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am more concerned over the implication of OR.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Again, as a claimed descendant of his, you are quite biased and shouldn't be editing the page like that.74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
This article could probably use some more eyes, and possibly an AfD. GMGtalk 00:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- GreenMeansGo, can you expand on that, please? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- The problem I see is that it's a synthesis of content from sources (some reliable, some not) that are actually about weaponized refugees as a concept, and also sources that are about specific migrations that the author(s) of the Wikipedia article have decided are case studies in weaponized migration. Some of these case studies do not have any sources about the concept, and others have no sources at all. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Current articles seems like a WP:POVFORK focused on European migrant crisis and recent US issues (Immigration policy of Donald Trump?) under a catchy title. Might be merits for a merge. There may be a merit for an article (e.g. in the cold-war, refugee traffic clogging autobahns and roads in Germany was an issue in Fulda Gap planning (and elsewhere) - e.g. see Fulda Gap: Battlefield of the Cold War Alliances, Lexington, page 71) - but one would hope that such an article would focus on a historic perspective (and probably wider than "weaponized" refugees, but rather the wide use/effects of refugees on warfare), which is not lacking here. If this remains the scope of the article - a merge or AfD may be prudent. Icewhiz (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: I didn't have the opportunity yesterday to go into more detail, but neither did I want to simply hit the back button and forget about it. As it stands, it looks an awful lot like the majority of the article is a WP:OR WP:NOTESSAY. Whole sections, such as that covering the Refugee Convention are simply off topic, dealing with related information not directly about the subject of the article. I don't have access to all the sources, but others appear to potentially be hand-picked examples done thematically, and not necessarily because the sources treat it in depth as the weaponization of internally displaced persons, conflating IPDs generally with IDPs employed as a weapon.
- Keeping in mind that IDPs used as a target of opportunity by unconventional forces is as old as warfare, and is not the same thing as the concept of weaponized IDPs. The latter requires a level of intentionality. Compare the cited US Army doctrinal publication. That refugee camps are dangerous places that pose myriad logistical and strategic problems is an IDP problem. If someone intentionally infects people with smallpox and sends them into a camp, that's the weaponization of IDPs. GMGtalk 12:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Some editors are trying to spin Elizabeth Warren's ancestry by removing the reactions by prominent Native Americans who support Warren, which exist to provide balance and neutrality for those who are offended or upset by her ancestry. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- That is not what is happening. You're insisting on including something (her speaking at a Native American forum) in her ancestry section, even though it has nothing to do with her ancestry. And now that consensus appears to be against your POV, you appear (to me) to be forum shopping in the hopes of finding editors more sympathetic to your POV. We have some solid editors working on this issue and it's well in hand. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- We may consider creating a new section such as "Ancestry controversy and Native American relations". Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Bloomberg Opinion piece regarding Twitter data sets in 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
Is Adam Minter's opinion in Bloomberg Opinion piece "When It Comes to Twitter Meddling, China's No Russia" (reproduced below) considered due weight in 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Social media?
Whatever the backstory, a brief perusal of the database reveals that the vast majority of content tweeted by these accounts wasn't related to Hong Kong and -- most important -- failed to generate retweets, likes or responses. In fact, most of the tweets in the database have no connection to the protests; some of the most popular appear to link to prurient material.
"When It Comes to Twitter Meddling, China's No Russia", Adam Minter, Bloomberg Opinion
I'm not convinced that Adam Minter's "brief perusal"
of the two data sets released by Twitter is due here, as the columnist is not a subject-matter expert, and his opinion was not mentioned by other reliable sources.
See also prior discussion at Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Bloomberg Opinion piece regarding the Twitter data sets. — Newslinger talk 22:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's another narrative regarding the social media situation. Since the social media has its own section, opinions should be covered. If there are no other voices in support or against Minter's comments, then there's nothing to weigh them against. I feel they should be included, with the caveat of a note saying that the issue hasn't been mentioned either way by anyone else — however you can find to best word that neutrally. Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the issue is more complex than Minter's opinion piece states ... on the above linked talk page ( Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Bloomberg Opinion piece regarding the Twitter data sets ) I had posted a few quotes from reliable sources that may better explain the situation ... basically, many of the accounts may have been recently purchased, and therefore had historical content that was not related to the HK protests. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- So more to the point, the opinion piece in question does explain some facts about the Twitter accounts, but does not accurately explain the deeper reasons behind his reached conclusions. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think his opinion is in due weight. It should cover more content about Chinese government's actions and reactions rather than content about "debunking" or analysing Chinese government's actions. I believed that the page should not become only or nearly only criticism of Chinese government's actions.Mariogoods (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I've added Mozilla Foundation fellow Renee DiResta's analysis to balance the paragraph, which has been split to International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Social media. Feel free to make further adjustments if necessary. — Newslinger talk 23:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Palestine country categorization
Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia#country categorization dispute
list of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia
Current text; ===States with limited, but substantial, international recognition=== In this list, Palestine is a state with substantial and widespread international recognition and UN observer-state status but without practical control over tangible territory, while Taiwan is a de facto state with full practical sovereignty over its territory and unofficial ties with most of the international community but not widely recognized de jure. A founding member of the United Nations as the Republic of China, as of 1971, Taiwan is no longer recognized by the United Nations.
Flag | Map | English short and formal names | Status | Domestic short and formal names | Capital | Population | Area |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Palestine State of Palestine |
Claimed as part of Israel. Recognized by 140 UN member states. (Not recognized by Israel and 55 other UN member states.) One of two United Nations non-member observer states | Arabic: فلسطين (Filasṭīn) | Jerusalem (declared) Arabic: القدس (Al-Quds) Ramallah (de facto) Arabic: رام الله (Rāmāllah) |
4,550,000 | 6,220 km2 (2,402 sq mi)
Proposed change; 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 | ||
Taiwan Republic of China[1][2] |
Claimed as part of the People's Republic of China. Officially recognized as the rightful government of all of China by 11 UN member states and the Holy See. However, Taiwan maintains unofficial relations with most other countries and is de facto recognized by most sovereign states. See Political status of Taiwan for more information about the situation. | Traditional Chinese: 臺灣/台灣 — 中華民國 (Táiwān—Zhōnghuá Mínguó) | Taipei[1][3] Traditional Chinese: 臺北/台北 (Táiběi) |
23,071,779[4] | 35,980 km2 (13,892 sq mi)[5] |
Proposed change
States with limited, but substantial, international recognition
In this list, Taiwan is a de facto state with full practical sovereignty over its territory and unofficial ties with most of the international community but not widely recognized de jure. A founding member of the United Nations as the Republic of China, as of 1971, Taiwan is no longer recognized by the United Nations.
Flag | Map | English short and formal names | Status | Domestic short and formal names | Capital | Population | Area |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Taiwan Republic of China[1][6] |
Claimed as part of the People's Republic of China. Officially recognized as the rightful government of all of China by 11 UN member states and the Holy See. However, Taiwan maintains unofficial relations with most other countries and is de facto recognized by most sovereign states. See Political status of Taiwan for more information about the situation. | Traditional Chinese: 臺灣/台灣 — 中華民國 (Táiwān—Zhōnghuá Mínguó) | Taipei[1][3] Traditional Chinese: 臺北/台北 (Táiběi) |
23,071,779[4] | 35,980 km2 (13,892 sq mi)[5] |
The change proposed is to recategorize Palestine not as a state with “substantial, but limited recognition” but as a “generally recognized” state
Lo meiin (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think that we all can agree that the State of Palestine enjoys substantial international recognition, particularly from soverein states with developing economies, and that the UN's vote to transfer its designation of the PLO as a UN observer entity to the State of Palestine as a UN observer state was not a trivial reclassification. However, the State of Palestine's status as a UN observer state does not mean that, ipso facto, it should be deemed to have the same level of international recognition as Indonesia or Turkmenistan and be grouped with generally recognized sovereign states.
- The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 11 of the 14 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 14 economies, only China, India and Russia recognize Palestine; the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain and Australia have yet to recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was (for all practical purposes) rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City.
- Besides, observer-state status does not give such states any voting rights that UN members enjoy; being a UN observer state does grant the state the right to join UN specialized agencies, but, then again, Kosovo and the two New Zealand associated states also have been granted membership to certain UN specialized agencies. So the fact that Palestine, but not Kosovo (for example), is a UN observer state is not much on which one can hang one's hat. I know that it's preferable to find a bright-line rule, but if such rule is contingent upon treating UN observer states as if they were UN member states it becomes arbitrary.
- The fact remains that, while Palestine has received substantial recognition of sovereignty, it falls far short of general international recognition, as it is not recognized by any G7 country, nor by most EU countries, nor by most major economies; by contrast, each of the 193 UN member states plus Vatican City are recognized by nearly all countries in such groups. When Palestine applied for UN membership, it withdrew its application when it became clear that it would be rejected by the UN Security Council. When Palestine is admitted as a member state of the UN, or when it has achieved recognition not just by a large majority of small countries, but also by a large majority of major economies (even if it continues to be blocked from UN membership), then it should be grouped with states with general international recognition.
- In the meantime, I share the sentiment held by proponents of the State of Palestine here in Wikipedia that it is wrong to group Palestine with de facto states with little or no international recognition such as South Ossetia or Somaliland. For this reason, I support the compromise reached by consensus several years ago of grouping Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara--each a de facto state with substantial, but not general, international recognition--together in a separate category. While these four de facto sovereign states do not come close to the level of international recognition enjoyed by, say, Slovenia or Bhutan, neither are they completely or overwhelmingly unrecognized states like Artsakh or Transnitria. I want Wikipedia to be a source of unbiased information to which children and adults may look to learn about the world around us, and that includes being honest when assessing the levels of recognition enjoyed by sovereign states. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't get why on Wikipedia there has to be a line drawn between what is and isn't considered 'limited recognition' when it is clearly subjective. Can't they all just be in the same catagory?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ythlev (talk • contribs)
- Unfortunately this is subjective and ridden with politics. Taiwan, for instance, functions as a state - controls territory, has an army, and is (beyond rhetoric) is a fully independent entity. It is lacking, however, in international recognition. The Palestinian Authority, while enjoying quite a bit of recognition, does not function as a state in practice (It doesn't control Gaza, it doesn't control most of the West bank, and it isn't independent in most of its affairs). Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't get why on Wikipedia there has to be a line drawn between what is and isn't considered 'limited recognition' when it is clearly subjective. Can't they all just be in the same catagory?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ythlev (talk • contribs)
References
- ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
Europa
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Government Information Office, Republic of China (Taiwan)". Government Information Office, Republic of China (Taiwan). Archived from the original on 3 April 2005. Retrieved 10 August 2011.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Capital
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Population
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Area
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Government Information Office, Republic of China (Taiwan)". Government Information Office, Republic of China (Taiwan). Archived from the original on 3 April 2005. Retrieved 10 August 2011.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help)
Justin Trudeau SNC Lavalin affair
Recently, the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau contravened a Conflict of Interest Act. In referring to this incident Trudeau said he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made but cannot apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs. An editor on the SNC Lavelin article has removed part of the information on this so that the article reads, "the Prime Minister said that he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made but did not apologize." instead of Trudeau's full statement, "Prime Minister said that he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made but could not apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs."
There are multiple sources documenting and discussing Trudeau's words so RS is not an issue. Here is one:[44]. As a disclaimer: I was the editor who added the words, "could not apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs." as context but am now being accused of POV editing. Discussion . Welcome all input as to whether this content can and should be added to the article. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- The claim "did not apologize" is factual, as he didn't. The claim "could not apologize" is not factual, as there was nothing constraining him from doing so. He obviously included the "could not apologize for saving Canadian jobs" as a verbal tactic, and it's unproven whether he actually did save any Canadian jobs by his actions. In my opinion, when the article is paraphrasing his words, it should communicate only the facts of what he said. That said, obviously the easy fix to all of this is just to modify the article to "the Prime Minister said that he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made, but added that he "could not apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs"". Zortwort (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Editing by User:Iblismesdara
- Iblismesdara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Iblismesdara's entire contribution to Wikipedia has been to note that particular biographical subjects have made significant donations to Donald Trump's campaign. The edits do not place any value judgement on said donations, but merely point them out.
I contend that, since none of the subjects in question is a notably active political person, their political donation history should not be a part of the Wikipedia biography. Iblismesdara contends that, since these donations are a matter of public record, they are valid content for the Wikipedia articles. On this basis, to be neutral, we would need to record the political donation history of every Wikipedia biographical subject. I further contend that, since Iblismesdara is concentrating solely on contributions to Trump, his motivations, whether positive or negative, are not neutral. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging this discussion to make sure I'm the only one who cares about this. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Does due weight apply to facts? and WP:DUE weight for co-sponsored legislation
There's a discussion over at the Tulsi Gabbard talk page regarding how to apply due weight to questions about legislative co-sponsorship. The main questions are:
- Is it appropriate to mention legislative co-sponsorships when they are not covered by secondary sources? edit I mean mentions of specific co-sponsored bills, not a legislator's general record of co-sponsoring legislation.Nblund talk 14:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Does WP:DUE apply to facts, or does it only apply to opinions and viewpoints?
Background The Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard page mentions multiple bills that Gabbard co-sponsored, but most of these bills are covered only in primary sources such as Congress.gov. For instance: Gabbard co-sponsored the Government by the People Act, but she is one of 163 representatives to co-sponsor that bill. Reliable sources do not mention her as a significant supporter of that bill, and she has co-sponsored over 1000 bills while in Congress. I've argued that it is probably WP:UNDUE to include her co-sponsorships unless they receive coverage in secondary sources. Xenagoras has argued that the due weight policy only applies to opinions and does not apply to undisputed facts like Gabbard's co-sponsorship. I don't think this is correct, but I would appreciate external feedback. Nblund talk 02:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think you're both wrong. First due weight applies to everything. In this example there is the appearance that it doesn't apply, but this is only because you both agree on the relevant facts. In this case, the facts are binary (True/False, black/white) and the government's own database, as presented through its webpage, is not a primary source, but a secondary one. The primary source is the legislators own spoken word (recorded or transcript) or signed paper stating her cosponsorship. Someone else is then reporting what she said, i.e., the house staff. The focal point of this debate should be, in my view, on giving readers understanding. The solution lies in providing some reasonable context for what co-sponsorship means. Maybe browse other pages to see how its handled there, look at the main pages that talk about legislative process.... if there isn't a good example to follow its time to create one. From my own personal knowledge, there are a gazillion bills that get introduced for PR reasons, and everyone in the legislature knows its for PR and they are not going anywhere. In a bicameral legislature (like the US) if the same party controls both sides they even pass bills in one, with a plan to kill itin the other, just for bragging rights. I know this from direct experience, but I'm sure there are plenty of RSs about strategy and tactics of the the legislature process. Good luck NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- NewsAndEventsGuy: I think the best models are probably the bios of other members of Congress, and I don't see many instances where a co-sponsorship is mentioned. Most legislators co-sponsor a ton of stuff because its easy and painless: the median legislator in the 115th Congress had 280 co-sponsorships, so the overwhelming majority of those are necessarily excluded from Wikipedia. If reliable secondary sources aren't bothering to mention Gabbard's involvement in this bill, then why would we? Nblund talk 14:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- We wouldn't, I agree. My comment was stupidly ambiguous, and I was trying to address reporting the total number of cosponsorships. As phrased, the opening post appears to offer a single example as, well, a single illustrative example. If that one bill is in fact the real dispute that fact didn't register on me. Thanks for asking me to elaborate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you mean now! I could have phrased that more clearly. Nblund talk 14:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- NewsAndEventsGuy, the section "campaign finance reform" of the Gabbard's article mentions 2 legislations, H.Res.48 and H.R.20. Nblund wants to delete H.R.20. Please link or quote the policy source for "due weight applies to everything". Xenagoras (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- We wouldn't, I agree. My comment was stupidly ambiguous, and I was trying to address reporting the total number of cosponsorships. As phrased, the opening post appears to offer a single example as, well, a single illustrative example. If that one bill is in fact the real dispute that fact didn't register on me. Thanks for asking me to elaborate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- NewsAndEventsGuy: I think the best models are probably the bios of other members of Congress, and I don't see many instances where a co-sponsorship is mentioned. Most legislators co-sponsor a ton of stuff because its easy and painless: the median legislator in the 115th Congress had 280 co-sponsorships, so the overwhelming majority of those are necessarily excluded from Wikipedia. If reliable secondary sources aren't bothering to mention Gabbard's involvement in this bill, then why would we? Nblund talk 14:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Due weight applies to facts and opinions. It is a fact that the moon is not made of cheese, but moon should not mention that as it is undue. If reliable sources reported a politician's opinion about the moon, there may very well be no mention of that in the moon's or the politician's article because of UNDUE. I haven't examined the article in question but there would need to be a reason (per WP:DUE) to mention that a politician co-sponsored legislation. An article is not a list of everything. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Johnuniq, please link or quote the policy source for "WP:DUE applies to facts".
There are zero facts supporting that "the moon is made of cheese". Anybody claiming "the moon is made of cheese" would state an opinion but not a fact. The moon article does not mention an opinion "the moon is made of cheese" because such an opinion would be such an invisibly tiny minority opinion versus the majority opinion "the moon is NOT made of cheese" that mentioning this minority opinion would give it WP:UNDUE weight. Additionally, any opinion (that "the moon is made of cheese") has less weight than facts (that "the moon is NOT made of cheese"), thereby further reducing the WP:DUE weight of said opinion.
The "campaign finance reform" section of the Gabbard article does not attempt to "list everything", but only essential content, like mentioning the co-sponsoring of H.Res.48 and H.R.20. H.R.20 strives to raise election participation by ordinary people and raise the transparency of campaign funding. Achieving these goals would reduce the relative influence of PAC money versus ordinary people. This corresponds with Gabbard's personal stance to not take PAC money and her statements about reducing the influence of PAC money and "the power lies with the people". It is also cited in secondary sources. Xenagoras (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Johnuniq, please link or quote the policy source for "WP:DUE applies to facts".
- While it is a fact that Gabbard co-sponsored bills, the information is self-serving particularly in terms of a page of a running political candidate. In such as case we should be guided by third-party RS coverage of the co-sponsored bills to include in here. If you have ever looked at a Congressperson's record, a lot of what is listed in the Congressional record is fluff, bills that fail to go forward, minor resolutions, etc., so to cherry pick co-sponsored bills out of that is a problem. Also, getting to be a co-sponsor on a bill can be trivial - bills easily can have upwards of a dozen+ co-sponsors, but usually the hard work is done by one or two of them, so even just being listed as a co-sponsor is not sufficient. But on the other hand, if a bill is noted in third-party sources and mentions the Congressperson as a co-sponsor, hey, great, then we can include it. --Masem (t) 14:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- To add to Nblund's clarification, if it is the case of WP editors picking and choosing out of those bills without guidance of 3rd parties, that's definitely a POV problem. --Masem (t) 14:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Masem, I did not "cherry pick co-sponsored bills", but only included H.Res.48 and H.R.20 in the section "campaign finance reform", because both are mentioned outside of Congress' website. I did not search through Gabbard's (co)-sponsored legislations in the Congress database to find them mentioned. Xenagoras (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- To add to Nblund's clarification, if it is the case of WP editors picking and choosing out of those bills without guidance of 3rd parties, that's definitely a POV problem. --Masem (t) 14:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Gabbard has sponsored 72 and cosponsored 1,085 bills. Unless we intend to cover all of these, and I don't believe we do, then you need coverage other than primary sources in order to determine the WEIGHT of which to cover and what vast majority of them to omit. GMGtalk 15:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional background and context from the author: Among the articles about the 10 most viewed candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, the article on Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with lowest article grade "Start". This means Gabbard's article is "quite incomplete ... and weak in many areas... Most readers will need more content. ... The article needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. ...". I noticed that several of Gabbard's policies are not even mentioned in Wikipedia, therefore I created all of the current content of section "campaign finance reform", with my last edit being this. I welcome improvements in the description of all of Gabbard's policies (some policies are still missing on Wikipedia). User Nblund overall deleted 19903 bytes (-14%) from Gabbard's page and added 3005 bytes (mostly by reverting his own deletions). Nblund's net contribution to Gabbard is negative 16898 bytes (-12% of total). He wrote "I've made cuts, and I'll probably make more". I think we should strive to achieve the next higher article grade for Gabbard by adding more content.
- The disputed content:
The section campaign finance reform mentions 2 legislations that Gabbard co-sponsored: The We the People Amendment (H.J.Res.48) and the Government by the People Act (H.R.20). User Nblund wants to remove the content about H.R.20, (by claiming WP:UNDUE weight) and the endorsement by End Citizens United (by claiming no WP:SECONDARY source is given). - The questions by Nblund:
- Is it appropriate to mention legislative co-sponsorships when they are not covered by secondary sources?
WP:PRIMARY sources are "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of ... a political decision." Gabbard herself saying, "I decided to co-sponsor H.R.20 for reason X", would be a primary source. See also how to classify sources. In my words: A primary source is the person/entity who creates information or opinion about an event/issue. A WP:SECONDARY source "provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." In my words: A secondary source is the person/entity who cites one or several primary sources. The Congress' website citing Gabbard's involvement in Congress' attempt to enact H.R.20 is a secondary source. Additionally, the GovTrack website is another secondary source citing Gabbard's involvement in Congress' attempt to enact H.R.20. Lastly, Ballot Pedia is another secondary source citing Gabbard's co-sponsoring. Importantly, secondary sources are not "good". And: Primary sources are not "bad" but can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources."
The endorsement of Gabbard by End Citizens United (ECU) is not a primary source related to Gabbard, because it is not Gabbard who says "I have been endorsed by ECU", but ECU writes, that they have endorsed Gabbard. Thus it is a secondary source related to Gabbard. - Does WP:DUE apply to facts, or does it only apply to opinions and viewpoints?
For this I firstly refer to the explanation I gave to Nblund on the article talk page. An aspect is the way something appears when viewed from a certain direction or perspective. This means an aspect is a partial view, a part of the whole view. The whole view gets synthesized by combining several aspects of a view from different perspectives. Example: "This car is good" is a whole view the the item "car". "The engine of the car is good" is one aspect of the view on the car. "The fuel consumption of the car is bad" is another aspect of the view on the car. Combining/synthesizing all aspects of the view creates the whole view. Now analyze the definition of the usage of aspect in WP:DUE:
"Articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." "Controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified." The definition of WP:DUE uses "aspect" 3 times (always in combination with view), "view" / "viewpoint" is used 28 times, "minority" is used 15 times, "majority" is used 5 times, "fringe" is used 1 time. All mentions of aspects in WP:DUE exist inside context of views and therefore the aspects in WP:DUE are aspects of views. It is completely obvious that "aspect" is meant as a "partial view" and the core meaning and the purpose of WP:DUE is to regulate how much space to give to the minority (fringe) view in relation to the majority view.
WP:DUE always applies to views = opinions, but never to facts. Xenagoras (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to mention legislative co-sponsorships when they are not covered by secondary sources?
No.Does WP:DUE apply to facts
Yes.
- See also WP:BLPPRIMARY. The congressional record is a primary source. A group writing about their own endorsement is also a primary source. Besides that, the high-handed hair splitting over the meaning of the word "aspect" is silly. GMGtalk 16:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- GreenMeansG, please link to or quote the Wikipedia policy that supports your statement "WP:DUE applies to facts". WP:BLPPRIMARY states, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." WP:BLPPRIMARY is obviously aimed at protecting a living person against doxing (publishing of private identifying/location information about a living person). The questions of Nblund are not related to doxing Gabbard. Nothing I wrote about Gabbard in the article section "campaign finance reform" relates to doxing. Therefore WP:BLPPRIMARY does not apply to the questions of Nblund or the disputed content.
After I explained to Nblund, that WP:DUE's scope covers opinions but not facts, he replied that "WP:DUE applies to views or aspects of an issue", thereby he implied that aspects were facts. Therefore I explained here why aspects are not facts but partial views and therefore also opinions.
Your remark "the high-handed hair splitting over the meaning of the word aspect is silly" is uncivil. You should strike-through that remark. Xenagoras (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)- It is silly and saying so is hardly uncivil. Incidentally, the only part of WP:BLPPRIMARY that you failed to quote was the part that was relevant to the issue at hand. Not a single person here has agreed with you and you would do well to take the advise you've been given and WP:DROPTHESTICK. I'm not going do debate you over the meanings of words, but I am beginning to wonder whether this is your first Wikipedia account. GMGtalk 19:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- GreenMeansGo, the title of the policy WP:BLPPRIMARY is "Avoid misuse of primary sources". Therefore nothing I left out of my policy quote applies to Nblund's question or disputed content. The policy WP:BLPPRIMARY covers protection of living persons against doxing, nothing else. None of the statements given by other editors so far has given any facts about why and where the WP:DUE policy covers facts in addition to opinions.
I am beginning to wonder whether you are being uncivil on purpose. I repeat, you should strike-strough your uncivil remark. Xenagoras (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)- Curious, how is it that you happened upon WP:RSOPINION in the two hours between making your first edit and making your first talk page post? That's quite impressive. GMGtalk 21:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Xenagoras. I forgot to ping you. But I see you're online now, so you can answer my question. GMGtalk 21:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- GreenMeansGo, the title of the policy WP:BLPPRIMARY is "Avoid misuse of primary sources". Therefore nothing I left out of my policy quote applies to Nblund's question or disputed content. The policy WP:BLPPRIMARY covers protection of living persons against doxing, nothing else. None of the statements given by other editors so far has given any facts about why and where the WP:DUE policy covers facts in addition to opinions.
- It is silly and saying so is hardly uncivil. Incidentally, the only part of WP:BLPPRIMARY that you failed to quote was the part that was relevant to the issue at hand. Not a single person here has agreed with you and you would do well to take the advise you've been given and WP:DROPTHESTICK. I'm not going do debate you over the meanings of words, but I am beginning to wonder whether this is your first Wikipedia account. GMGtalk 19:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- GreenMeansG, please link to or quote the Wikipedia policy that supports your statement "WP:DUE applies to facts". WP:BLPPRIMARY states, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." WP:BLPPRIMARY is obviously aimed at protecting a living person against doxing (publishing of private identifying/location information about a living person). The questions of Nblund are not related to doxing Gabbard. Nothing I wrote about Gabbard in the article section "campaign finance reform" relates to doxing. Therefore WP:BLPPRIMARY does not apply to the questions of Nblund or the disputed content.
- It is not WP's place to make up for lack of coverage of a candidate, period. --Masem (t) 16:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Masem, we as wiki contributors should do our part and use the available sources (they are out there!) to improve the article from grade "Start" to at least grade "C" as is requested by the definition of grade "Start". Xenagoras (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- We cannot create coverage where coverage does not exist, however. "Beefing" up an article by putting an editor-selected list of co-sponsored bills which has gained the note of no reliable sources is not allowed. That said, I would have a hard time finding that one cannot build out enough an article for a sitting Congressperson particcularly when taking into account regional and local sources. --Masem (t) 22:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Masem, of course we must not do WP:ORIGINAL research. The sources for info on Gabbard are out there and can be found via Google, which I used to find info about H.Res.48 and H.R.20 and everything else. I did not arbitrarily select a list of co-sponsored bills, instead I used the Google search to find sources mentioning Gabbard. It is indeed difficult to find coverage on all of Gabbard's policies, because corporate mass media has only 1 question for Gabbard that gets endlessly repeated while every other policy gets neglected. The coverage of Gabbard's policies is far worse in newspapers than in visual media. But I have not yet found the time to watch and transcribe all her video interviews that might offer coverage on more policies.
There is unfortunately a very low number of active editors that add content to Gabbard's page, but Nblund is very busy deleting content. He deleted 12% of all content on Gabbard so far. It is difficult to keep up against his deleting spree and his behavior is also discouraging for people adding content, only to watch it being deleted shortly after. And he has stated, "I've made cuts, and I'll probably make more." He already deleted half of my addition before I answered here on this NoticeBoard/RequestForOpinion. I think this is inappropriate behavior. He should have waited until this discussion is resolved before changing any content that led to this very discussion. How do I prevent this? Xenagoras (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)- I haven't deleted any of the mentions of co-sponsored bills that led to this discussion. If you don't want your contributions to get deleted, you're going to have to accept the feedback you're getting from other editors. Stuff like this (which contained a verbatim recitation of her campaign materials in Wikipedia's voice) is pretty much always going to get deleted on sight. Nblund talk 00:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Masem, of course we must not do WP:ORIGINAL research. The sources for info on Gabbard are out there and can be found via Google, which I used to find info about H.Res.48 and H.R.20 and everything else. I did not arbitrarily select a list of co-sponsored bills, instead I used the Google search to find sources mentioning Gabbard. It is indeed difficult to find coverage on all of Gabbard's policies, because corporate mass media has only 1 question for Gabbard that gets endlessly repeated while every other policy gets neglected. The coverage of Gabbard's policies is far worse in newspapers than in visual media. But I have not yet found the time to watch and transcribe all her video interviews that might offer coverage on more policies.
- We cannot create coverage where coverage does not exist, however. "Beefing" up an article by putting an editor-selected list of co-sponsored bills which has gained the note of no reliable sources is not allowed. That said, I would have a hard time finding that one cannot build out enough an article for a sitting Congressperson particcularly when taking into account regional and local sources. --Masem (t) 22:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Masem, we as wiki contributors should do our part and use the available sources (they are out there!) to improve the article from grade "Start" to at least grade "C" as is requested by the definition of grade "Start". Xenagoras (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would say that WP:UNDUE and similar policies are mainly about deciding which facts to choose to cover in an article and what kind of depth and prominence to give to those facts. Take a biographical article at Wikipedia for example. There are many more verifiable facts about a person's life we could choose to include in an article; but many of the more banal or inconsequential ones we don't include because they do not add meaningfully to the narrative of their life; and by including them we may skew the article in ways that do not accurately represent the person. So we choose which facts to cover, and which to ignore, because not everything is of equal importance. --Jayron32 16:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Jayron32, please elaborate where and how WP:UNDUE supports your assertion that its scope covers facts. Facts are not mentioned once in WP:UNDUE. What you describe in regard to allocating different amounts of "depth and prominence" for different facts in article is covered by WP:BALASP, but that policy covers "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports. ... This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Xenagoras (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Xenagoras: to clarify, I think both HR 20 and HJ 48 should be removed unless we can find coverage in a reliable secondary source. WP:LINKSINACHAIN explains that simply repeating the same stuff elsewhere doesn't make a source secondary. Secondary sources add additional context and analysis. Congress.gov doesn't do that. Your account is just over a week old, and every one on of your 40+ edits have been related Tulsi Gabbard. I don't think that invalidates your viewpoint (we all started somewhere) but a half dozen or so experienced editors are telling you the same thing. You should take that to heart. Nblund talk 18:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Nblund, I disagree, but I offer you a proposal. Both H.Res.48 and H.R.20 are well sourced and besides that, the decision whether they are sufficiently sourced shall not to be made here on WP:NPOVN but on the article talk page, and if that fails, on WP:RSN. I understand and accept your point about WP:LINKSINACHAIN since I have read it.
On the question "does WP:DUE apply to facts?": Here is how I suggest this disagreement between us shall be solved: We make a compromise: I will abide all policies including WP:NOTEVERYTHING which regulates how much space should be given to different facts and you accept that WP:DUE does not apply to facts and you will abide to improving content if you can rather than deleting it. Please read my summary below from 22:44, 28 August 2019 in my answer to Blueboar on the content and purpose of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and its consequences on my editing. You can skip all following text in this post if you agree on this compromise.
If you do not want to make this compromise, I would like to offer an argumentation guideline based on Wikipedia's policies.
Policy quote begin:
What to do when you have a dispute with another editor: The best practice is to improve content it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus. Try negotiating a truce or proposing a compromise through negotiation. Graham's hierarchy of disagreement: Aim at the top during disputes. (My personal interpretation of the pyramid: The green marked arguments at the top are winning a dispute: types 1 and 2. The gray one in the middle: type 3 is neither winning nor losing but allows for inquiry for more/better arguments. The red marked types of disagreement at the bottom of the pyramid are losing a dispute: types 4, 5, and 6.)
Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus. Consensus does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Achieving consensus ... through discussion: Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. ... Several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for comment and the village pump). Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given (personal remark: see Graham's pyramid of disagreement above) on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. The editor/administrator closing a discussion will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is. To do this, the closer must read the arguments presented. A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.
Policy quote end.
Analysis of quality of arguments: You Nblund, NewsAndEventsGuy and GreenMeansG gave a type 4 disagreement (contradiction with no supporting evidence). Johnuniq gave a type 3 disagreement (counterargument with no supporting evidence but with reasoning. But he used a logical fallacy that I explained at 17:18, 28 August 2019) Jayron32 gave a type 3 disagreement (counterargument with no supporting evidence but with reasoning. He did not quote or describe WP:DUE, but he correctly elaborated on the purpose of a different policy that regulates how much space should be given to different facts. Jayron32 did not name that policy. It is WP:NOTEVERYTHING as Blueboar later explained.) Blueboar did something remarkable: He did not attempt to refute my assertion about WP:DUE, but instead named the correct policy to apply when deciding how much space should be given to different facts: WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Johnbod did not explicitely give his own assertion on WP:DUE, but suggested to me "to believe the other editors" who disagree with me and to abide to the majority opinion, which goes counter to policy: Consensus is not determined by counting heads but ascertained by the quality of the arguments given. Among the editors (including yourself) that disagreed with me on WP:DUE during this discussion, none gave a type 1 or 2 disagreement that would refute my assertions about WP:DUE. Therefore the consensus is:
WP:DUE does not apply to facts. WP:NOTEVERYTHING regulates how much space should be given to different facts. Xenagoras (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC) - @Nblund: I forgot to ping you. Xenagoras (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Xenagoras, its time to drop the stick. Apply whatever policy you would like, but I think it is well-established because information is factual doesn't mean it is warranted for inclusion on a Wikipedia page. If you want to include mentions of her bill co-sponsorships, find reliable mainstream sources that mention them. If you want to avoid having your contributions deleted, then use good quality sources. Also please refrain from plagiarizing material as you did here - this will always get deleted or reworked no matter how well sourced. Nblund talk 21:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Nblund, I disagree, but I offer you a proposal. Both H.Res.48 and H.R.20 are well sourced and besides that, the decision whether they are sufficiently sourced shall not to be made here on WP:NPOVN but on the article talk page, and if that fails, on WP:RSN. I understand and accept your point about WP:LINKSINACHAIN since I have read it.
- More than WP:DUE, the more important policy for this discussion is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We don’t include information simply because it is accurate and verifiable. Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Blueboar:, I agree with you, and thank you for your remark and link to WP:NOTEVERYTHING. That policy is helpful in this discussion and for editing in general because WP:NOTEVERYTHING's scope contains both opinions and facts, unlike WP:DUE. I read WP:NOTEVERYTHING and found a couple of policies in its sub categories that have to be adhered to in my contribution to Gabbard's section on campaign finance reform:
WP:NOTEVERYTHING itself requests, an article "should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." This means I have to consider which parts shall be shortened, which shall be moved elsewhere and which shall be removed.
WP:NOTADVOCACY prohibits "advocacy: .... political ... or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view". This means I have to consider which text that comes directly from primary source Gabbard needs to be removed or shortened or replaced by indirect speech or by secondary sources or balanced by opposing views.
WP:NOTNEWS prevents wikipedia from becoming a newspaper: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities." This means I have to consider which announcements or news reports about Gabbard will stay important beyond the daily news cycle.
WP:NOTDIARY is very similiar to WP:NOTNEWS: "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are."
Blueboar, your link was very helpful, thank's again. How would you reconciliate the WP:NOTEVERYTHING policy (incl. subcategories) with the article grade "Start" guideline that requests to add more content? Would you be so kind to have a look at my initial version and help me improve it? Xenagoras (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Blueboar:, I agree with you, and thank you for your remark and link to WP:NOTEVERYTHING. That policy is helpful in this discussion and for editing in general because WP:NOTEVERYTHING's scope contains both opinions and facts, unlike WP:DUE. I read WP:NOTEVERYTHING and found a couple of policies in its sub categories that have to be adhered to in my contribution to Gabbard's section on campaign finance reform:
- Guidelines don't override policies. There is no WP:DEADLINE to get a Start-class article past Start, but we are required to make sure what's included is appropriate for an encyclopedia. That likely means here that Gabbard's article will remain Start class until they get more coverage in the media. --Masem (t) 22:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Masem, I understand what you mean. The thing is, that among the 18 most viewed articles about the Democratic presidential candidates, the article on Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with lowest article grade "Start". Wikipedia missed the deadline June 26, 2019 when the democratic primary debates began. Wikipedia is faced with a huge demand for information about Gabbard that is not being fulfilled by Wikipedia because the article lacks so much content. This seems to be not only caused by a failure by corporate mass media to generate a large amount of newspaper articles about Gabbard that Wikipedian's can use, but also by a lack of commitment/activity in the Wikipedia community. On August 25, 2019 I added the section on "campaign finance reform" policy. Her electoral reform policy is still missing along with some other policies. We should have done better a long time ago. We should do better now. Xenagoras (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- The article is now rated "B", which seems right. Her political positions have another article. Many people have told you that WP:DUE applies to facts and opinions equally - I suggest you believe them & stop flogging this dead horse. If the article is too short, quality not quantity is what we look for in additional material. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Masem, I understand what you mean. The thing is, that among the 18 most viewed articles about the Democratic presidential candidates, the article on Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with lowest article grade "Start". Wikipedia missed the deadline June 26, 2019 when the democratic primary debates began. Wikipedia is faced with a huge demand for information about Gabbard that is not being fulfilled by Wikipedia because the article lacks so much content. This seems to be not only caused by a failure by corporate mass media to generate a large amount of newspaper articles about Gabbard that Wikipedian's can use, but also by a lack of commitment/activity in the Wikipedia community. On August 25, 2019 I added the section on "campaign finance reform" policy. Her electoral reform policy is still missing along with some other policies. We should have done better a long time ago. We should do better now. Xenagoras (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Guidelines don't override policies. There is no WP:DEADLINE to get a Start-class article past Start, but we are required to make sure what's included is appropriate for an encyclopedia. That likely means here that Gabbard's article will remain Start class until they get more coverage in the media. --Masem (t) 22:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
DrifAssault has added an extraordinary amount of criticism to the 5-Minute Crafts article, mostly using original research, self-published sources (including Wikia (RSP entry) and other YouTube (RSP entry) channels), and selective quoting of news articles. The addition of the chart at Special:Diff/913019435 is a bit over-the-top.
I've started a discussion on the talk page at Talk:5-Minute Crafts § Original research to no effect. It would be nice to see some additional opinions on the content of this article. — Newslinger talk 10:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
DrifAssault: Yes, there are a lot of negative idea on my page, but I thought I can add some idea to them. However, i have cited to be more "third-party" and also some positive ideas. However, i want to have a fresh eye on this. P/S: social blade is acually an analystic tool to youtube channel, which count subscriber and views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault (talk • contribs) 11:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- DrifAssault, I think you need to take a moment and review guidance at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We do not use primary youtube videos, wikis and online forum comments as sources on Wikipedia. GMGtalk 12:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Is mentioning also not allowed? as I just show people that there is that channel? (I have read that, and found out most of my added source are biased, and I thank you for helping me as I am a new Wiki editor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault (talk • contribs) 13:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @DrifAssault: We generally do not use these sources whatsoever, because there is no reason to believe that the information is accurate. For example, anyone could just as easily go to some wiki, or start a wiki of their own and write whatever they want, and then come to Wikipedia and use it as a source to say whatever, regardless of whether it is factual. We also do not use primary sources such as youtube videos to make novel assertions, such as interpretations of what the important elements of the videos are. That get's into problems with original research. If there are important aspects of the videos that are worthy of further exploration, then we need to find a secondary published source that does so, not take it upon ourselves to review the primary sources. GMGtalk 14:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I will remove direct source altoghether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DrifAssault/sandbox so if newslinger or/and gmg want to help me, please edit my sandbox page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, DrifAssault! To be completely clear, it's okay to have an article to say more negative than positive things about a subject, but only if independent reliable sources say the same. When we mention a review in an article's "Critical reception" section, it's important for us to convey the overall impression of entire review. If a mixed review says positive and negative things about something, you'll want to mention both. However, if the review is mostly positive or mostly negative, you should say that.
Our policies/guidelines on sourcing and reliability can be a lot to read through, so let me summarize the relevant parts for you:
- Self-published sources (including YouTube (RSP entry) videos) are not acceptable when they are talking about something other than themselves. The exception is when the YouTube channel is operated by a more reliable source (such as a news organization).
- Raw data (such as the statistics from SocialBlade) should generally not be cited directly. If we add YouTube statistics to an article, they should be coming from reliable secondary sources such as news reports that mention them. In most cases, we're not allowed to directly interpret raw data, because that would be original research.
- User-generated content (including Wikia/Fandom (RSP entry)) is almost never acceptable, since anyone can write anything. This even includes Wikipedia (RSP entry) itself: we can link to other Wikipedia pages, but we generally can't cite them as sources.
- If you're not completely sure about whether a source is reliable, it would be good to ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Also, feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any questions about editing. I've done a bit of copyediting in your sandbox page, and I'll be happy to look over it some more when you are ready. — Newslinger talk 01:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
NormSpier (talk · contribs · count) has recently added a very large amount of negative content related to Medicaid estate recovery to the following articles:
- : Special:Diff/682619084/912949236
- : Special:Diff/909824345/912954601
- : Special:Diff/901904756/912699623
- : Special:Diff/905346028/912738497
- : Special:Diff/910497164/912742742
- : Special:Diff/909480199/909790623
Almost all of the edits included in the diffs were made by NormSpier.
These content additions are problematic because they use original research (with primary sources and synthesized claims), some self-published sources (including promotional links to their own website, such as this page – archived here – in Special:Diff/909660591), and an unbalanced presentation of facts and opinions to introduce arguments against Medicaid estate recovery in the style of an essay.
A portion of the criticism introduced in these edits may be warranted in these articles, but it should not be presented in this way.
Since this is a large amount of content to thoroughly review, I'd like to get some input from other editors. How should these articles be changed to reflect a neutral point of view? — Newslinger talk 17:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Initial Response by NormSpier:
I welcome the forthcoming efforts of one or more editors to improve the article. I am new to writing for Wikipedia, so I trust you will figure out a better way to present the issues.
Let me report on what I did, to make your edits the best possible:
I built of the "Medicaid estate recovery" article from a stub in the last month or so. I added mainly, but not only, a large section on the critical issue of Medicaid estate recovery of non-long-term-care-related expenses, and how it interferes with the ACA. (I tried to have the wording be neutral on the 2nd pass of the article, after a prior essay-like comment from an editor.)
I added to a number of other articles, on aspects of the Medicaid estate recovery of non-long-term-related expenses. However, in the case of the ACA article, I added about 5 problems (section called "Problems"), which are well-known, and I have references. (About half of them were pointed out to me from a user on the VoxCare facebook site, and I had to look them up. "Family glitch", etc.)
On the ACA article, note it was found a little too positive at some point. The "talk page" has:
Note that the"talk" section of the ACA article has, from someone, "(AUG 2018) Portions of this article read as though they were written by the government and therefore should be questioned as political propaganda. Instead of reading in a more neutral manner, many of the points play out in a consecutively gratuitous manner toward the subject of the article. It reads more like a brochure and less like an objective analysis. There is far more positive POV description of the law than neutral or negative, and much time is spent in this article describing the components of the law AND "why that is good" for you, in a symbiotic relationship."
(Thus, the added problems should add balance. Also, they are a real necessity for a balanced article, as the defects are conspicuous to people familiar with the details of the ACA.)
The content I added is mostly negative, because of the nature of the issues. (I was in fact focusing on adding problems, because the ACA is up for repair or replacement.) What I wrote does not reflecting original ideas, as far as I can tell. (Editors may find aspects where I slipped, and did inadvertantly have original ideas. But, after a caution from a prior editor of Medicaid estate recovery, I did try to remove everything that seemed original.) Note the pile of references after, in the "Medicaid estate recovery" article, "The view that there were problematic aspects of the interaction of non-LTCR Medicaid estate recovery with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was put forth in various places starting from the time the ACA was passed", including the Washington Post and Seattle Times and Minnesota Star Tribune, as well as the academic journal Health Affairs and other think-tanky sources. (Those references document that other have seen various issues with Medicaid estate recovery of non-long-term-care-related expenses as it relates to the ACA. Later in the article, I have sub-issues, which I have attempted to document from sources.)
Please note: the issue of recovery of non-long-term-care-related Medicaid expenses post ACA is real (I ask people to think about what it says and see that it is real; and note that 6 states have acted on it to adjust since the ACA start in 2014 or soon after, as well as the Obama administration attempted to address in a 2014 issue), somewhat obscure (for political reasons--it's embarassing to some politicians and may enrage some people getting ACA expanded Medicaid, as it did in certain states where it was reported on), and most definitely not original.
So I ask the editors: in order to do the edits well, please do try and understand the technical issue of Medicaid estate recovery for non-long-term-care-related expenses, and its interaction with the ACA. It has been underpublicized lately, I think for political reasons. I'll bet few, if any, editors who will do the edits on this knew about the issue prior. The issue is that, in many states which have expanded Medicaid, people 55 or older who get expanded Medicaid in fact are only getting a loan for medical expenses. The estate has to pay the expenses paid out back. (Here, not in the encyclopedia, but here, I am using partial language, because the issue is so stunning because it is so blatant yet underpublicized. I do hope all editors see the technical issue. Bills are paid for a person now, but have to be paid back the estate, as part of the ACAs health insurance system (for people 55 and older, in states which exercise their option to do Medicaid estate recovery, for people who get Medicaid or expanded Medicaid: that is, those with incomes to 138% Fed Pov. Level.). Editors, please see and understand the issue. I'll bet you all didn't know about it! You will of course have the article be objective about this, and my partiality, and being stunned shows here in this "Neutral Point of View" section, but of course, it should nor appear in the final article.)
(Also, since I'm being open on my personal position on the issue here, let me point out that I was and still am all for the ACA. However, my opinion is there are serious defects that need to be cleaned up in the law. One defect of which is Medicaid estate recovery for people 55 and over in states that still do that post-ACA. Further, there are other issues, which did make it into the ACA article only under problems, and are generally recognized. Of course, the Wikipedia entry itself needs to report on issues objectively, and in an objective tone.)
(I will be glad to help people understand the issue if they are unclear. I am not sure how familiar the editors are with the details of the ACA, and its construction. So if anything is unclear, just ask. You might Try also the Washington Post, Seattle Times, or Health Affairs articles.)
Please note, while you edit, that the problem isolated is specifically the recovery of non-long-term-care-related expenses from Medicaid for people 55 and older. It messes up half of the ACA (expanded Medicaid), and makes it essentially not real insurance. Bills paid out have to be paid back. (Here, in this document here, I am varying from neutral language which I tried to put into the article.)
I probably have not succeeded perfectly in making the article neutral point of view. I am new to Wikipedia writing, so certainly I could use to learn some things about being more neutral, and conforming to Wikipedia standards. Hopefully, you editors will fix and adjust wording, etc. I welcome your bringing things up to Wikipedia standards.
Note also: I am happy to have removed my own "Blog" pages on the matter from the articles. (The one cited by Newslinger, http://nasmusicsoft.com/BlogMAEstateClawback1.html , and possibly some article also has my other page: http://nasmusicsoft.com/BlogACAConsumerProblems.html. These are 2 of a total of about 80 references that I added. The "Medicaid estate recovery" article was taken up from a stub by me in the last month or so, and most of the references are mine. That is, about 70 references, one or two of which are to my own pages.) However, the other numerous references are not my own, and include Health Affairs (academic) and major and minor newspapers.)
I thank you all for your efforts to fix any problems with what I have added. I assume you will do this in the spirit of making the articles a more complete and fair representation of the ACA, and its associated Medicaid. I am glad to have the expertise of more experienced editors to figure out exactly how to do this.
NormSpier (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC) Added a little later:NormSpier (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi NormSpier, and thanks for your comprehensive response. Also, thank you for spending a large amount of time and effort into expanding these articles. The Medicaid estate recovery article is much more informative right now than it was a month ago (Special:Permalink/682619084). I've read your web page ("A List of Affordable Care Act Problems"), and I found it extremely informative. It provides a lot of useful information, and presents this confusing topic in an understandable way. Your personal experiences with the MA Estate Recovery Unit are enlightening, and your suggested solutions are thought-provoking. I could see your web page being popular on social media (e.g. certain subreddits) if it isn't already.
I get the impression that you are trying to convey the information on your web page, as well as your personal knowledge of Medicaid estate recovery, in these Wikipedia articles. However, what makes for a compelling web page rarely makes for an appropriate encyclopedia entry. Some of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines are:
- Verifiability: Readers should be able to verify every single statement in a Wikipedia article with a reliable source. Assertions, opinions, or examples that are not from reliable sources are generally unacceptable. Synthesizing multiple sources to deduce something that none of the sources directly say is also not allowed.
- No original research: Articles should be based mostly on reliable secondary sources. Primary sources can be used for uncontroversial information in some cases, but claims that can't be verified in reliable secondary sources are usually excluded from articles.
- Neutrality: The goal of Wikipedia is to inform readers, not to persuade them. We try to reflect all major viewpoints covered by reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. If an issue is
"underpublicized"
, it should be featured less prominently in an article. - Tone: Web pages can be informal, but Wikipedia articles should be written in a dispassionate tone. Also, contractions shouldn't be used unless they are in quotes of cited sources.
- Reliability: On Wikipedia, sources are considered reliable if they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and if they are endorsed by other reliable sources. Unfortunately, self-published sources such as personal web pages are excluded by that definition in most cases, so you wouldn't be able to cite your own web page. This also applies to most blogs, including group blogs and company blogs.
You've done some significant research for these articles, and you've managed to collect a large number of relevant reliable sources. (You even have too many citations in some places. It's a good practice to condense long rows of citations with the
{{refn}}
template to save space.) The less reliable sources should be removed, and you can always ask the reliable sources noticeboard if you're not sure whether a source is reliable. Sticking to reliable sources means that a significant portion of your additions would have to be rewritten. Please don't take this personally, since articles change all the time, and everyone's contributions eventually get altered in some way.On neutrality: I do expect much of the coverage on Medicaid estate recovery to be negative, since it is a liability from the consumer's perspective. However, editorializing can exaggerate the point of view, and its best to only use strict summaries of reliable sources. It's admirable that you are trying to communicate
"the recovery of non-long-term-care-related expenses from Medicaid for people 55 and older"
to the public, since this is a serious financial consideration for many American individuals. You are welcome to include information on this issue in Wikipedia articles, but only if it is adequately supported by reliable sources and explained in an appropriate amount of text for the topic of the article. Going beyond that to give undue emphasis to this aspect of Medicaid would unbalance the article.I hope this clears up some of the expectations for Wikipedia articles, and helps clarify what is needed to improve these articles. I'll be happy to help you look over these articles, although there is a lot of content and writing articles on complex topics is always a long-term effort. If you have any questions on editing, please feel free to ask me on my talk page at any time. — Newslinger talk 22:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Newslinger and other editors who I get the feeling Newslinger is trying to get to look at at the articles.
- For the main articles in question: Medicaid estate recovery and ACA, I have removed the one link to my own page on one of them, and two Daily Kos references, which were not verified by the publication, but just blog posts by users.
- I have looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Usage_by_other_sources , as one of the issues. (This is the 5th of your issues: Reliability)
- it says, under:
- Statements of opinion
- "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable."
- I think I've used the opinion sources correctly, stating them as opinion. (HufPost, etc.) I use terms like "viewpoint" where there is opinion.
- Otherwise, to my eyes, I am OK on "verifiability", "No Original Research", "Neutrality", and "Tone". However, I'm not that experienced at writing for Wikipedia. (A week or two ago, AnUnnamedUser reviewed Medicaid estate recovery, and did have issues of "No Original Research", "Neutrality", and "Tone", and after that reviews, but I thought I fixed them as well as possible with both deletions and rewording as opinions. This for both the Medicaid estate recovery article, and the ACA article.)
- Apparently not, and I think the issue is that I'm just not sensitive enough to Wikipedia standards at this point to make the articles conform without extensive help on specific sections of the text.
- I'll see if I get any ideas on further improvements to conformance, but mainly, I think its up to you, more experienced Wikipedia editors to either:
- a)point out specific passages that should be removed, reworded, and exactly how, if a rewording. (Or, ask for clarification, where does the reference say that?, etc.)
- or b)do the deletion or rewording yourselves, using whatever editor consensus procedures you have to make sure there is sufficient agreement on your end.
- So, basically, as I see it, I need to wait for more detailed feedback, or else you editors will just do the changes. (I realize no one may have time, and you may just delete my sections. That will be O.K. if that is your best judgement.)
Also, I'll of course be happy to delete my sections myself, for all the articles, if their editor consensus is that they should be deleted, as to not make extra work for everyone. (Except parts of the ACA article, which I added, which had no comments in review.)
NormSpier (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Just adding a bit on the critical ACA article, where you may want to avoid an appearance of bias in favor of the ACA, and the covering up of problems.
Also, note. Of the various articles in question (in the messageboard), probably the most critical for it not to appear to others of bias in favor of the ACA, covering up defects, is the ACA article itself, where the section Problems (which I added) lists 5 problems,
5 Problems 5.1 Subsidy Cliff at 400% FPL 5.2 Sometimes-Unaffordable Out-of-Pocket Maximums 5.3 Family Glitch 5.4 Estate Recovery under 138% FPL 5.5 Coordination of Medicaids with On-Exchange Plans
Note that most of the problems, including estate recovery when it is done by states non-long-term-care-related, are in multiple sources, and in particular this reliable one: https://tcf.org/content/report/key-proposals-to-strengthen-the-aca/ (co-authored by Tim Jost, an academic lawyer who did most of the the Health Affairs "Covering the ACA" posts until a year or two ago.)
Specifically, 4 of the 5 wikipedia ACA section 5 "problems" are within the text of the single "proposal to strengthen" article:
5.1 is within "Increase Credits for Moderate- and Middle-Income Families" 5.2 is within "Reduce Cost-sharing and Out-of-Pocket Limits and Improve Minimum Employer Coverage Requirements." 5.3 is within "Fix the Family Glitch" (you only have to go so far as the title) 5.4 is within "Eliminate Medicaid Estate Recoveries from the Expansion Population" 5.5 is the only one not in "proposal to strengthen". But I have reliable references (last paragraph in the article), including actual continuity of coverage issues found in the GAO report.
(The comment is repeated in the "talk" section for the ACA article only).
NormSpier (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi NormSpier, for the articles on broader subjects (e.g. Massachusetts health care reform), I think a better alternative than deleting would be to move the new content to sandboxes at subpages of the respective article talk pages (e.g. Talk:Massachusetts health care reform/sandbox). We could then gradually reintroduce the new content back into the articles as it becomes copyedited for policy compliance, and we'll also check the proportions of the articles' coverage of Medicaid estate recovery to make sure that they do not give undue weight to this subject. If an article covers Medicaid estate recovery in too much detail, we'll keep only the parts that are most relevant to the article's subject, and use a
{{See also}}
hatnote to direct the reader to the Medicaid estate recovery article for general information on the subject.I'll help review the content, but we'll also solicit help from other editors on this noticeboard and in related WikiProjects such as the ones listed at the top of Talk:Medicaid estate recovery. Does this sound like an acceptable plan to you? — Newslinger talk 16:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It is fine to include some of the criticism listed at Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act § Problems, although the length of the content should be reduced. For instance, the listed examples for silver/bronze plans are considered original research since they're not covered in reliable sources, and they should be removed. — Newslinger talk 16:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Newslinger
- So, sure, I'm OK with the plan, as I understand it.
- For the articles on your list besides the ACA and Medicaid estate recovery, I'll move it to the sandbox. (Unless any of it is obviously out of standards to me, even with my lack of complete understanding of the standards, in which case I will delete it.)
- It sounds like for the Medicaid estate recovery, you, or assigns, are gonna handle it. That's fine. Do it however you wish. If you have questions about the meaning of what I wrote, or where the references apply, just ask.
- For the ACA article, I don't want to be observed pulling out the 5 problems, or over-shortening them, as I actually support the ACA and might be accused of covering up defects. So I'll leave it to your group, to do whatever, including moving stuff to the sandbox temporarily. (I'll of course answer any questions, etc.)
- Also, on the issue of the ACA article silver and bronze plan (used in 2 problems), note everything can be verified from the referenced healthcare.gov website. I've given the zipcode for a Chicago locale. A little math is needed, which may or may not be more than you want to have the readers or editors to have to do. (I see it may have to be pulled out for reasons of Wikipedia standards, so go ahead and do it, or sandbox it, or whatever.) However, just let me express the opinion that I find it informative, and gives people a picture of the numbers involved in people's real world premiums and copays, and the effect of the subsidy cliff. I personally don't want to be seen pulling out the sections myself, because it looks like it might be a covering up of real problems, with substantial cost-of-premium (when over the cliff) and copay issues with the ACA. (I guess I'm voicing a criticism of the Wikipedia policy on this--very useful information is kept out because it involves a little math and understanding of the regulations. But I'm attacking no one in particular. Just the principle. I did a search, and tried to find the numbers in direct form from a reputable source before computing the numbers myself, but could not. The numbers computed use a reputable source, Healthcare.gov, but calculation is involved. (Also, I took FPL from a reputable source.)
NormSpier (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, for the last 4 of the 6 articles, I just deleted the stuff. As discussed above, I've left the "Problems" section of the ACA article in the editors hands, as well as the Medicaid estate recovery article. NormSpier (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
For my own continuing edification and trying to figure out Wikipedia standards, I did look up undue weight
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Text later on is unclear to me if equal text space is mandated. I hope not. That wouldn't make sense from a pursuit-of-truth point of view. It may be that one argument is more complex than the other.
In the particular case of Medicaid estate recovery, I actually did, after the first reviewer cited essay like, add in 'The moral justification for Estate Recovery has been stated as “if you’re receiving a public benefit and the state is trying to support you, you should give back if you are able".' (5th paragraph) This actually is about the whole argument. (One might add something like the government needs money to pay for Medicaid expenses. But that's about it. Two short arguments.)
The other side of the argument, which only comes in post-ACA, with non-long-term-care related estate recovery, is in fact complicated. You can't really understand the issue unless you get into the structure of the ACA, and think about what's going on with the collection all medical expenses from the estates of people who were supposedly insured under the ACA. Further, you have to have pointed out the exact structure of who gets real insurance where nothing has to be paid back, and who gets mislabelled insurance that has to be paid. It's people with similar incomes paying similar premiums (small or 0) and all with small copays, on either side of the 138% Federal Poverty Level divide. Additionally, there was (prior to mandate repeal) an issue of people being compelled to accept expanded Medicaid, or pay a penalty. This is done under the pretext of limiting adverse selection in order to give everyone good insurance that pools risk, but the thing is, in states that do non-long-term-care estate Recovery for people 55 and older, when it is all medical expenses, there is no pooling of risk at all for those people. There is also an economically bizarre estate recovery of a non-asset-tested benefit. (In opinionated language, O.K. here, but not for articles, there are a lot of parts to explain to see how the contraption is so cockamamie!)
Then, in the case of Medicaid estate recovery, there is also a case of both the director of the National Accociation of Medicaid Directors, and the Obama administration, acting as though they see there is a problem. And many states fixed at ACA start, or after, but as well, many have not.
These are all relevant complicated factors, where I can find no complicated factors in the 2 short arguments for the other side. So, if the Wikipedia standard does in fact mean equal text length, then I find it at fault. Something that may help with the optics, but would lead to wasted space explaining simple things, or not explaining complicated things.
Also, I see it is in the standard, to give weight based on how reported things are. ("In proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This, I guess, is the standard, but I find it intellectually faulty. People who are familiar with "Manufacturing Consent" (Chomsky/Herman) will understand why, immediately. (So will many Donald Trump voters!)
This mainstream business may be coming up with Medicaid estate recovery (interaction with ACA part), which, though publicized in 6 or 7 mainstream sources that I can find, including the mainstream, limited-view newspapers of Chomsky/Herman, is probably or apparently still intentionally underpublicized, in order to make the ACA look good, and to keep people from getting enraged as they have in states where the issue did manage to get publicized mainstream. (These are WA, where the issue got fixed in a few days I believe, after publicity in 2013. Also CA and MN, where publicity led to political action and changing the recovery of non-long-term-related expenses.)
So I've learned from this that wikipedia has standards forcing it to behave like a mainstream, limited-viewpoint, or viewpoint expressed- proportional-to-establishments-sources. (Just a comment. It may or may not apply to Medicaid estate recovery, but it looks like an issue.)
NormSpier (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone is working on this, note that I have now added article-specific stuff on the Talk pages for the 2 remaining articles in question. These are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Medicaid_estate_recovery and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act.
NormSpier (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi NormSpier, I've set up sandboxes for all of these articles. They are listed below and also linked from the respective article talk pages (in a message box near the top).
- Currently, these sandboxes contain the content that was removed from the related articles. (The first two sandboxes are empty, because nothing has been removed from these articles yet.) If any portions of the sandbox content are both policy-compliant and relevant to the articles, we can restore them. We can also revise or copyedit the text in the sandboxes: it's a general drafting area for the articles.
- Regarding your
"pursuit-of-truth"
comment, please note that Wikipedia seeks verifiability, not truth. In many topics, "truth" means different things to different people, and Wikipedia's way of adjudicating different perspectives is to derive our article content from reliable sources.
- Wikipedia tends to reflect the information published in mainstream sources, and we recognize that as a form of systemic bias. The best way to address this bias is to use a diverse selection of reliable sources that reflect all prominent perspectives. In addition to online news sources, we can also use books and academic publications from reputable publishers. (Google Books, Google Scholar, and Semantic Scholar are good resources.) Once you participate a bit more on Wikipedia, you can also obtain access to The Wikipedia Library Card Platform, which gives you access to many paywalled publications free of charge.
- However, there is no way around using reliable sources. Since all article content is derived from the cited sources, the quality of the sources directly determines the quality of our articles. If you feel that some information is inadequately covered by reliable sources, the only policy-compliant way to get that information into Wikipedia is to get it reliably published. You may want to consider getting into contact with journalists and convincing them to write about these subjects. You can also become a journalist yourself, although that opens you to conflict of interest issues on Wikipedia.
- Let's discuss matters regarding specific content on the related article talk pages. We can continue coordinating the review process here, but it would be best to keep this discussion as organized as possible. Thanks again for your willingness to engage with other editors. — Newslinger talk 13:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Requests for comment
Hi NormSpier, I'm following up on the Teahouse discussion. Once again, the disputed changes to the articles are below:
- : Special:Diff/682619084/912949236
- : Special:Diff/909824345/912954601
- : Special:Diff/901904756/912699623
- : Special:Diff/905346028/912738497
- : Special:Diff/910497164/912742742
- : Special:Diff/909480199/909790623
To use this method of dispute resolution, we need to figure out which sets of changes we agree and disagree on. For the articles which we disagree on, we can start a request for comment on the respective talk pages to ask the whole Wikipedia community whether your changes should be kept or removed. Editors who participate in the discussion might suggest other solutions, but they will usually choose one or the other.
Given the two choices (keep or remove) for each article, I would choose to keep the changes to the Medicaid estate recovery article and remove all of the changes to all of the other articles.
Which of these articles do you want to keep your changes in? — Newslinger talk 19:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, Newslinger, and everyone else. As I indicated prior, and reiterated at the Teahouse, I have removed several days ago my additions to 4 of the articles (to the best of my ability). The two where the additions remain are Medicaid estate recovery (which I have built up from a stub), and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, where I've modified sections, adding stuff about "silver plan loading". I've also added a section trying to explain the way the coverage achieved ("Outline of the coverage mechanism"), which may or may not be problematic for Newslinger, but most definitely, my addition of the section "Problems", (Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Problems) describing 5 problems with the ACA, like "subsidy cliff", "family glitch", and "excessively high copays" is a trouble spot for Newslinger.
- Newslinger. I may have missed answering your exact question above. Of the two articles with remaining additions, ACA, and Medicaid estate recovery, I would keep both. Subject to, as below, I find the question too coarse, keep or remove. The binary choice. See below. NormSpier (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note that there have been certain additions, either for additional clarity, or to try to reasonably comply with points made by Newslinger, so I don't know what, exactly, those bulleted diffs are, but note they may not be the latest version (of the articles in question).
- Thirdly, please note that the optimal resolution is to find a person or two with time, familiar with Wikipedia standards, able to understand technical details of the ACA, able to review the text, and make by line comments, with possible iteration back and forth between us on where things come from, and what they mean, and how standards may or may not be violated. (I understand Newslinger has attempted to seek additional reviewers starting 5 or 6 days ago, but has not been able to find any.)
- I'm uncomfortable with the binary choice on the ACA article that you've given. Reducing down to the two articles left, you are saying keep Medicaid estate recovery, and the choice is remove (or not remove) all changes to the ACA article, including the section you object to, which talks about 5 problems of the ACA. This, in fact, seems politically suspect. You have not indicated any errors in any section, including that section. You have indicated the point of view is not neutral, but it is a section on problems with the ACA, that are real, and should not be covered up. No one else besides yourself has indicated they find the section incorrect or biased or any other violation of standards.
NormSpier (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, Newslinger, as in the second sentence, "The two where the additions remain are Medicaid estate recovery (which I have built up from a stub), and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"
- Also, rather than "keep all", or "delete all" on what I put in the ACA article, if you can't find someone with appropriate time and skills take a careful look, including necessary iteration with me, a third option is to leave the "Problems with ACA" section exactly as it is, including keeping, over the section, (a) "Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (August 2019)", (b)"The neutrality of this article is disputed. (August 2019)", and (c) "This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (August 2019)" all of which you put on the "Problems" with ACA section 8 days ago, and wait till people with suitable time and understanding of the issues get to it.
- I've perused the article. Some people with understanding of the ACA technical mechanisms (rather than politics or law--not particularly relevant for the matters in question) apparently wrote parts of it. Maybe they will come back, eventually. There also must be people in the general public who will see the article, with the 3 disputes over "Problems", and eventually take a stab.
NormSpier (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi NormSpier, I've started a request for comment (RfC) at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act § RfC: Recent additions. Please comment with your opinion. For an example of what the RfC discussion format looks like, you can refer to this closed RfC on an unrelated topic that also asks editors to choose between two versions of an article.
Since the additions to the article are very long (over 54,000 characters), a line-by-line evaluation is not feasible without enough volunteers. This RfC will be advertised throughout Wikipedia in several ways (see WP:RFC § Publicizing an RfC for details), and will likely attract enough attention from other editors to form a consensus on this article. As I mentioned in the Teahouse discussion, the result of this RfC will determine the starting point for this article, and whether to include or exclude specific portions of the added content can be discussed on the talk page afterward. The attention from the RfC will hopefully attract editors who are willing to participate in these discussions after the RfC. — Newslinger talk 05:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Ethnic background and drug dealer status of convicted co-conspirator in Jennifer Pan
Hi, everybody! Please see Talk:Jennifer_Pan#Possible_bias_in-text for a discussion on whether the ethnic backgrounds of the individuals involved and whether the status that one of the convicted co-conspirators (none of the people charged by the Canadian authorities - "the Crown" - were exonerated, all were convicted or pleaded guilty) was a drug dealer, a way in which he got to know and recruited other co-conspirators, are relevant or irrelevant details for this article.
Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikivoice and "climate crisis"
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As you may know, the phrases climate change and global warming have been officially replaced by some (certainly not all) media outlets. For example, the editorial board of the The Guardian has adopted substitute phrases climate crisis and global heating. Greta Thunberg and the school climate strike movement uses similar language and will be making a lot more headlines in weeks ahead. Meanwhile here at home is a surge of new interest in the climate pages, and a fast-rising citing of "climate crisis" phrasing in RSs. Inevitably, some editors want to follow the The Guardian's lead by embracing the use of "climate crisis" in Wikivoice. It's my view that the balance of RSs may get us there one day, but not yet, and so we need to report on the reframing issue itself, and use inline attribution where necessary. I'm interested in consensus that leaves us all stronger together, but fear this has earmarks of a potential blow up. We're gonna need your skilled NPOV help, I think, and right now the focal point might be at Greta Thunberg and Climate crisis.
Caution, all climate pages are under DS per WP:ARBCOMM. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- UPDATE - the main thread where its being discussed (so far) is Talk:Climate_crisis#Wikivoice_and_"climate_crisis". Please consider adding comments there, for benefit of climate eds who never come here.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- We should be very wary of neologisms and media hype. Best to use the terms that the majority of climatologists use in academic writing. Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- An absolutely (pretentiously) objective voice would continue to use "climate change" and "global warming"; a realist would use "climate crisis", which is the conclusion all sources point to. However, we're not allowed to draw conclusions, so we must follow others':
- Carrington, Damian (2019-05-17). "Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-09-01.
- Redlener, Caleb; Jenkins, Charlotte; Redlener, Irwin (2019-07-31). "Our planet is in crisis. But until we call it a crisis, no one will listen". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-09-01.
- And so, in the very least, we should allow regular use of "climate crisis" by editors. François Robere (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- "All sources" - every single blessed one - is untrue. For example, IPCC's last special report does not use that framing NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't say "framing", I said "conclusion", and the IPCC's latest lists some pretty catastrophic ones. François Robere (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Also, Google Scholar has some 20,500 results for the term.[45] François Robere (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#Google_test, WP:Editorializing, and WP:No original research. I am 100% in agreement we should report on the content in the IPCC report. Making the step from what the science says to this adjective would require editorial choice, which we should be very slow to do. in addition, although the googletest is dubious, a slightly more meaningful test of this sort would be limited to the professional climate literature, maybe at Google Scholar. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- You really didn't read what I wrote, did you?... François Robere (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oops! Not that carefully. Its a rare ed who goes straight to google scholar doing the googletest and I assumed and read too quickly. Sorry! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- You really didn't read what I wrote, did you?... François Robere (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Google Scholar from 2015 onward has about 8k results for "climate crisis" and 500k for "climate change". 2k for "global heating" and 95k for "global warming". Clearly, there's a winner in both races by the scholarly lit. --Masem (t) 15:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- A couple comments:
- Kudos on the use of Google scholar rather than simply all of Google
- That said, "climate Change" generates 2.55 million hits, so roughly 120 for every "Climate Crisis" hit
- Not all articles are supportive of the notion that the current rime should be described as a climate crisis, one of the links was discussing the Triassic Period, not today, one was using the term in the context of arguing that it didn't apply, etc. To be sure, only a minority of those I sampled, but let's not make the simplifying assumption that Google Scholar has 20,500 entries in support the usage for today.
- I naively thought Google Scholar returned, well, scholarly articles. When did that describe the Rolling Stone?
- My experience with Google searches is that the quality drops off after a few pages. I haven't tried the same thing with this search, but it should be done before using this as a metric.S Philbrick(Talk) 00:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#Google_test, WP:Editorializing, and WP:No original research. I am 100% in agreement we should report on the content in the IPCC report. Making the step from what the science says to this adjective would require editorial choice, which we should be very slow to do. in addition, although the googletest is dubious, a slightly more meaningful test of this sort would be limited to the professional climate literature, maybe at Google Scholar. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Also, Google Scholar has some 20,500 results for the term.[45] François Robere (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't say "framing", I said "conclusion", and the IPCC's latest lists some pretty catastrophic ones. François Robere (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- "All sources" - every single blessed one - is untrue. For example, IPCC's last special report does not use that framing NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- There's no doubt it's a crisis, but the term "climate crisis" is dangerously close to framing at this point. I think it is more sensible to stick with climate change, but to describe individual elements (such as the crisis in the Amazon rainforest) as such. That gives less scope for denialists to claim alarmism and discount the facts, apart from anything else. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Unless there is meant to be a precision difference in the terms, these scream "sensationalizing" terms to make people sit up and take notice. Because these are issues related to science, we should stay with the reliable scientific sources, which are "climate change" and "global warming". --Masem (t) 14:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- I doubt you can accuse Science, the IEEE Spectrum or Yale Climate Connections of "sensationalizing".[46] François Robere (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: There's an issue of norms here: "hard" scientists are trained to make narrow, well-defined observations, and are often wary of (and ill-equipped for) the media aspects of their work. It is unlikely you'll find frequent use of the word "crisis" among climatologists - in fact, some of them may even object to it for fear of "scaring off the public" (I suggest listening to this interview with David Wallace-Wells, author of The Uninhabitable Earth). You're more likely to see this use by social scientists, who deal with the human aspects of this crisis; indeed, a cursory look at the leading results of the relevant GS query shows just that: ethics, media, public administration, economy, political science, psychology, and human geography. François Robere (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- The reason why many hard scientists are hesitant to use the word "crisis" is the same as the reason why we should not rush to use the word in Wikipedia's voice: they see their job as to present facts, and they fear that the use of a loaded term that has not (yet) become standard will diminish their credibility as scientists, especially among the readers who need to be convinced of the urgency of the issue. They believe that strong language is not as effective as strong facts in educating the public. The same goes for Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- No-no, that is certainly not the case,[47][48][49] and you'd be hard-pressed to find a serious academic who still believes that. To quote Marcus Du Sautoy, Prof. of Mathematics and Simonyi Prof. for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford:
We have the data. We understand the science. So, it still amazes me that there are people who are not convinced that we are facing a climate crisis. Research published in Nature has revealed that the power of storytelling is as key to scientific communication as much as presenting the numbers. It is important therefore for scientists to tap into these skills if we want to engage everyone in the debate.[50]
- François Robere (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Dr Sautoy's quoted opinion may be eloquent, and there may be an increasing buzz to go that road, and we might do so eventually. But Wikipedia follows, it doesn't lead. As Masem points out above, to the extent we can measure by recent googlescholar searching, the trend is just beginning NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it does seem to be increasing exponentially, so in about 3 years it should overtake the other terms. That being said, the question isn't about an obligatory style guide like the Guardian's, but about whether we can use that term. I think we can: we have a list of 235 media outlets and organizations that have committed to the term (officially or in practice), in addition to the UN Secretary General, some parliaments and cities, and senior climate scientists like Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and Irwin Redlener. This is more than enough to say "yes, we can use that term if we see fit." François Robere (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @François Robere: Your response to me contradicts what you say in your comment. I wrote that "many hard scientists...believe that strong language is not as effective as strong facts in educating the public," and you responded "No-no, that is certainly not the case, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a serious academic who still believes that." But just before you wrote "It is unlikely you'll find frequent use of the word `crisis' among climatologists - in fact, some of them may even object to it for fear of `scaring off the public.'" What we are debating here is not whether or not there's a climate crisis, but rather whether or not the term "climate crisis" is at this point in time a standard, NPOV-compliant term. NightHeron (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see a contradiction there, but agree about the latter. François Robere (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Dr Sautoy's quoted opinion may be eloquent, and there may be an increasing buzz to go that road, and we might do so eventually. But Wikipedia follows, it doesn't lead. As Masem points out above, to the extent we can measure by recent googlescholar searching, the trend is just beginning NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- The reason why many hard scientists are hesitant to use the word "crisis" is the same as the reason why we should not rush to use the word in Wikipedia's voice: they see their job as to present facts, and they fear that the use of a loaded term that has not (yet) become standard will diminish their credibility as scientists, especially among the readers who need to be convinced of the urgency of the issue. They believe that strong language is not as effective as strong facts in educating the public. The same goes for Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Stick with the less alarmist, more scientific descriptions, climate change etc. Wikipedia shouldn't be a locomotive for change but rather the caboose of change. Springee (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Razom
This rather sorry article has some potential sources listed at the foot, but I don't understand the geopolitics enough to weed out polemic from news. Anyone here feel like taking pity on it? Guy (Help!) 13:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Classical liberalism category and Dave Rubin
There's a dispute over at Talk:Dave Rubin over whether or not the category "classical liberal" can be applied to his article. Several sources describe him as applying this categorization to himself, but few reliable sources actually use the term to describe him in their own voice (he's commonly described as a libertarian). Outside input would be appreciated. (discussion here)
Broadening a bit: I recently removed this category from several contemporary political figures (ex: Charles Koch, Allen West, Christina Hoff Sommers) who are usually described as conservative or libertarian. Clearly it applies to people like John Locke (although he's not in the category) but I'd be open to input on whether it is appropriate from some contemporary political figures. Nblund talk 01:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Unless RS explicitly refer to someone as a 'classical liberal', then we should not describe them that way or categorize them that way. In recent years, there has been a fad among various conservatives to claim the term 'classical liberal' in order to connect themselves to various past thinkers or to claim some kind of neutrality and objectivity when they spend all their time reciting conservative talking points and dunking on liberals. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- These liberals you say are being dunked upon, are they social liberals? Keynesians? Neoliberals? Liberation theologians? By conservatives do you mean social conservatives? Religious fundamentalists? Laissez-faire economics types? Non-interventionists? Bonapartistes? I'm afraid you really need to better define your labels.
- Several RS have mentioned this trend towards reviving the "classical liberal" label, some have even mentioned the fact that people buy T-shirts from Rubin's online store with the phrase "classical liberal" written on them in big letters. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 02:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ignoring your desire to start a NOTFORUM debate about politics and jumping into the second paragraph: the sources in question generally say these are "self-descriptions", as opposed to descriptions by the RS. In a lot of these sources, the RS suggest these individuals are just conservatives or libertarians who are misappropriating the term for their own ends. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- As I've said elsewhere, these ad hoc lists of people classified by political positions violate the GDPR and in my opinion are ill-advised. From a legal perspective, it's no biggie, since US politicians are not protected by European privacy rights. Other servers are in Amsterdam though, and similar categories pertain to European citizens. It might be good to reflect on general policies concerning generating these "on the fly" categorizations without any opt-in/opt-out possibilities, as the current system is quite likely not compliant with EU privacy laws. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 02:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- ??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- I believe I linked to the text in the original discussion, but here it is again so you can read it without your glasses on:
Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. source
- Here it would be no big deal, again, because he's broadcast his political opinions by selling T-shirts. But as a general rule, adding living people to categories (like for example Category:Neoliberals) should be done with caution, not only for these reasons, but also for those TFD mentions below. People like Paglia & Peterson would surely be annoyed to find themselves categorized as such, should the MSM ever finally get that new & improved label-making software added to their word-processing systems. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- ??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- While Rubin is a a classical liberal under some definitions of the term, compared with John Locke he is insignificant and should be excluded. Categories are navigation devices. Pity the reader who is wants to know more about classical liberalism and finds a list of hundreds or thousands or possibly tens of thousands of biographies about people who could be described as classical liberals. TFD (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is that there are two meanings of classical liberal. There's the academic meaning, and there's the informal meaning as used by the cult of Peterson, which is synonymous with misogynist asshat. Rubin is the latter kind. We shouldn't collude in the intentional appropriation of labels to obscure obnoxious views. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, the "misogynist asshat" is unneeded. Enough people have acknowledged the term in this modern application to use it. Those who attack Rubin et al seem to be attacking their (mis)understanding of the subject rather than the subject itself. That said, I think the navigation category argument against had merit even though I don't fully agree. While I initially it opposed removal I'm less included to do so now but with additional sources that could be subject to change. Springee (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oh god. This debate, where ultra conservatives try to somehow align themselves with Locke, in a conception of Locke surely inspired by a 10-minute YouTube video's worth of his philosophy. I've yet to see anything to say that it isn't a terribly misapplied piece of anachronistic obscurantism. GMGtalk 17:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Map of United Nations member states
There is a dispute on United Nations with the map File:United Nations Members (green–grey scheme).svg shown in the infobox. In it, Taiwan and Kosovo are coloured on the basis that they appear to be part of some UN member state on UN's maps
. This claim is not sourced. Even if it is true, taking the UN's position without basing on reliable sources violates WP:NOTPROMO. The vast majority of such maps treat Taiwan independently.[1] Doing otherwise violates WP:UNDUE. The map should be switched to this one, but User:Wadaad repeatedly refused to follow WP policies. Ythlev (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ "r/MapPorn". reddit. Retrieved 3 September 2019.
- @Ythlev: I'm afraid if you want to get a serious discussion going, you're probably going to have to start with better sources than a link to reddit. GMGtalk 11:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Taiwan approves same-sex marriage in first for Asia". cbc.ca. Retrieved 3 September 2019.
- ^ "The retreat of global democracy stopped in 2018". The Economist. 8 January 2019. Retrieved 3 September 2019.
- The map is sourced.[51] Secondly, Taiwan falls under China according to the UN.[52] Mind you China has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council, a vital component of the UN. Lastly, your proposed map[53] violates the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Somalia as Somaliland is not recognized by any country (literally zero) while Somalia is a UN member-state.[54] Your map strongly violates WP:ADVOCACY and hence should not be included and the status-quo should remain. Wadaad (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Ythlev: So your saying that the UN's own information on it's own membership is not reliable? Why wouldn't it be? --Jayron32 11:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- This link that this user keeps citing makes absolutely no reference to Taiwan. Even if UN does consider Taiwan part of China, it is only one viewpoint. Is it the majority viewpoint according to WP:WEIGHT? Ythlev (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- But...on an article about the UN, isn't the UN's opinion the only one that really matters? I mean, opinions may differ about whether Taiwan should be an independent member state. But it's kindof hard to have an opinion on whether they currently are. You can have an opinion about whether Karachi should be the capital of Pakistan, but Pakistan says the capital is Islamabad, and that's pretty much the end of the discussion. GMGtalk 13:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
But...on an article about the UN, isn't the UN's opinion the only one that really matters?
Says who? What policy says only the subject's opinion matters on its article? WP:NPOV:
Ythlev (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
- Yeah, but it's difficult to see how, on the subject of UN member states, a thing that the UN decides by definition, there are any "significant views" other than the views of the UN.
- This link that this user keeps citing makes absolutely no reference to Taiwan. Even if UN does consider Taiwan part of China, it is only one viewpoint. Is it the majority viewpoint according to WP:WEIGHT? Ythlev (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Besides, you appear to be arguing from entirely hypothetical sources. The two you've provided regarding Taiwan don't have anything to do with the United Nations. The map you prefer seems to just throw around autonomous regions and disputed territories willy nilly, with no indication why these are being chosen out of scores of territorial disputes, and dozens of autonomous regions. Northern Cyprus is only recognized by one country. Somaliland isn't recognized by anyone. Transnistria is only recognized by other places struggling for recognition. So you are making the argument of "fairness and proportionality", when what you seem to have done is pick winners and losers in a random selection of conflicts, many of which are clearly not winning the "fair and proportional" debate. When a state has negligible or no international recognition, these do not constitute "significant views" that we must take into account on broad global subjects. Part of recognizing significant views is disregarding insignificant ones. Each of these areas have their own article, and interested readers can go there for additional information. GMGtalk 17:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a reasonable way to resolve this would be to make a minor adjustment in the caption to the map to make it absolutely clear that it's the UN's map (without assuming that the reader will look at the source reference) rather than a map that everyone would necessarily agree with. Just change "Map of the current UN member states..." to "The UN's map of its current member states..." There's already a discussion of alternative opinions on Taiwan in the section on criticisms of the UN, so I don't think anything else is needed in order to ensure NPOV on this issue. NightHeron (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Except it isn't the UN map. The map was created by a Commons user. It describes exactly what it is: UN member states. The status of Taiwan may be in dispute in other contexts, but it is not in dispute that the UN considers it to be under the jurisdiction of the PRC. --Jayron32 18:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: My apologies, I saw the citation to the UN and erroneously thought it was for the map. Now I see that the citation is just for the information that was used by whomever constructed the map. If the UN doesn't itself publish a map of this sort, don't we have a problem of OR and SYNTH, since the coloring of countries (such as Taiwan) is based on an interpretation of UN policy by an unnamed person? There are many other countries and regions besides Taiwan that have a complicated history of disputes and shifting boundaries, and the map clearly gives a simplified picture of that history as it relates to UN membership. If the source of the map is not the UN but an unknown person, don't we have RS and SYNTH issues? NightHeron (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
it is not in dispute that the UN considers it to be under the jurisdiction of the PRC.
I dispute this. There is no source for this. Ythlev (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)- I think you might be well served to read WP:RGW. It is not the place of the encyclopedia to take a position on the question of the claimed territories of any state. The United Nations recognizes the PRC as the government of China, and does not recognize Taiwan's independence. This may have realpolitik reasons (such as China's permanent security council veto backed by a nuclear arsenal) but that's the de facto reality. To treat it otherwise violates WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Well, you can dispute anything you want. However, your individual dispute does not mean that the world at large is in dispute over the matter. The UN is not confused by its own resolutions and statements on the matter, however, as noted here, which states among other things "The General Assembly...decides to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China and to recognize [it] as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations." Also, a clarifying statement on from the UN is made here which notes "regarding the Taiwan Province of China, the Secretary-General follows the General Assembly’s guidance incorporated in resolution 2758...The General Assembly decided to recognize the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations. Hence, instruments received from the Taiwan Province of China will not be accepted by the Secretary-General in his capacity as depositary" Other UN documents consistently refer to Taiwan as the "Taiwan Province of China" and not as a sovereign state on its own, and do so unambiguously. Please note that my saying this does not mean that I agree with the UN on this matter (and me saying THAT does not mean that I don't. I hold no meaningful opinion on the issue, not that my opinion means anything) and saying all of THAT also does not mean that the matter of Taiwan's sovereignty is undisputed, but on the very narrow and specific issue of what the United Nations recognizes, the UN clearly, unambiguously, and repeatedly since 1971 has recognized the island of Taiwan as being under the Jurisdiction of the PRC. --Jayron32 12:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Simonm223: @Jayron32:
Other UN documents consistently refer to Taiwan as the "Taiwan Province of China"
. So your interpretation of this view is solely based on how the UN refers to Taiwan? Has the UN stated what territories are part of "Taiwan Province of China"? Does it include Kinmen? - Even if so, the point remains that colouring the map based on this view violates WP:UNDUE:
Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.
Colouring Taiwan independently is the majority view in sources. Ythlev (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)- Not if the map is specifically showing what the UN considers to be the status of Taiwan. This issue with this map is not what the majority view of Taiwan's status is. Only what the UN's view of Taiwan's status is. For other maps showing other views, they may serve to be colored differently. For the map of what the UN considers, this one is correct.--Jayron32 04:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Simonm223: @Jayron32:
- (edit conflict) Well, you can dispute anything you want. However, your individual dispute does not mean that the world at large is in dispute over the matter. The UN is not confused by its own resolutions and statements on the matter, however, as noted here, which states among other things "The General Assembly...decides to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China and to recognize [it] as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations." Also, a clarifying statement on from the UN is made here which notes "regarding the Taiwan Province of China, the Secretary-General follows the General Assembly’s guidance incorporated in resolution 2758...The General Assembly decided to recognize the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations. Hence, instruments received from the Taiwan Province of China will not be accepted by the Secretary-General in his capacity as depositary" Other UN documents consistently refer to Taiwan as the "Taiwan Province of China" and not as a sovereign state on its own, and do so unambiguously. Please note that my saying this does not mean that I agree with the UN on this matter (and me saying THAT does not mean that I don't. I hold no meaningful opinion on the issue, not that my opinion means anything) and saying all of THAT also does not mean that the matter of Taiwan's sovereignty is undisputed, but on the very narrow and specific issue of what the United Nations recognizes, the UN clearly, unambiguously, and repeatedly since 1971 has recognized the island of Taiwan as being under the Jurisdiction of the PRC. --Jayron32 12:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think you might be well served to read WP:RGW. It is not the place of the encyclopedia to take a position on the question of the claimed territories of any state. The United Nations recognizes the PRC as the government of China, and does not recognize Taiwan's independence. This may have realpolitik reasons (such as China's permanent security council veto backed by a nuclear arsenal) but that's the de facto reality. To treat it otherwise violates WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
You still don't get it do you? I'm not arguing it's correctness. This is about how information is represented in the article. The UN considers every piece of land part of it? Fine. That can be easily stated with one sentence or a paragraph. This map, if it has any value, can still be in the article, but it is the main map. The main map should be the mainstream view, which is that Taiwan, Kosovo etc have different statuses and are coloured independently. Such a map as the main map only mislead readers, especially when the footnote is not expanded. Ythlev (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jayron32: @GreenMeansGo: By the way, File:ICAO.png colours Taiwan independently. Almost every map does. Ythlev (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The map that illustrates the lead in United Nations is the same one as in Member states of the United Nations, where it is sourced directly to the UN. However, it is too small to see any detail, and so is of questionable value. The footnote gives a qualifying statement, and there are qualifying statements in the original source about the map not implying endorsement of any party in certain disputes. The second map in United Nations, as User:Jayron32 pointed out, is not a UN map; rather, it was composed by someone who is not cited. It also is too small to show any detail, and, moreover, does not include any of the qualifying statements that are in the first map or in the UN source for the first map. I don't really see any reason not to remove both maps on the grounds that neither one is likely to be helpful to the reader, neither one contributes to the article's accuracy, and the second one violates WP:SYNTH. NightHeron (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see why. We have maps all over Wikipedia created by Wikipedia users based on data from reliable sources. The maps can be clicked to zoom in for greater detail, as do all maps. This isn't a novel synthesis issue if the map is created from reliable sources, just as text is supposed to be created from reliable sources. The maps are fine, and other than your mis-use of WP:SYNTH, every single map everywhere on Wikipedia is similar to this one in all of the other points you make. --Jayron32 12:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking about all those other maps, just about the two on United Nations. Take the first one, which illustrates the lead. Yes, when you click on it, it gets bigger. But even the bigger version is not informative. Everything is green, except for a few tiny white portions that are unlabeled. Most seem to be lakes, but some might be non-member countries. Not very helpful to the reader. The reason why the second map appears to be OR or SYNTH is that the person who composed the map did not include the caveats that the UN includes in its map, and so it implicitly invites the reader to draw conclusions from the map about the UN's stand on certain disputed areas. The UN itself seems not to want readers to over-interpret its maps in that way. So by including the map without caveats, Wikipedia is deviating from the source and imposing its own interpretation. In addition, as I said before, the map is a historical map that simplifies history. If the UN chose to do that (that is, publish this map), then fine. But the decision to present a simplified version of the history of UN membership was not the UN's decision or the decision of some other RS, but rather the decision of a Wikipedia editor. NightHeron (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: Please compare the historical map about UN membership to the cited source, which is the UN's year-by-year list of admissions of countries to the UN. The list has many footnotes explaining complicated cases. For example, in 1973 both the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic (two different countries at the time) were admitted, and in 1990 following reunification of Germany they merged into a single member state. There are other complicated cases, as well (two different Yemens were admitted in 1947 and 1967, and they later merged into a single member state). In contrast, the map misrepresents the source by over-simplifying and introducing glaring inaccuracies. It portrays Germany as a united country that joined the UN between 1960 and 1989. A map-maker and a Wikipedia editor may have felt that this simplification/distortion was acceptable in order to have a visual representation. WP:SYNTH tells us "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source," such as that a unified Germany joined the UN between 1960-1989. Presumably the UN would not be likely to publish such a map because they wouldn't want readers to have diminished confidence in the factual accuracy and reliability of UN documents. For the same reason, shouldn't the map be removed from Wikipedia? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- The map doesn't display dates of membership. Only the current status. Former states that no longer exist aren't relevant for this map. It doesn't show that information at all, and isn't trying to, so your point is entirely worthless here.--Jayron32 04:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't use insulting language like "worthless" (WP:CIV: "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment"). I think we might not be talking about the same map. Of the three maps in the article, I've been raising objections to the first (for being unhelpful to readers) and the third (for being inaccurate and misrepresenting the source). The latter map has the countries color-coded according to dates of membership. It shows a map of Germany as it currently exists being admitted in 1960-1989. It's a historical map that inaccurately represents the information contained in the source. NightHeron (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- The map doesn't display dates of membership. Only the current status. Former states that no longer exist aren't relevant for this map. It doesn't show that information at all, and isn't trying to, so your point is entirely worthless here.--Jayron32 04:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: Please compare the historical map about UN membership to the cited source, which is the UN's year-by-year list of admissions of countries to the UN. The list has many footnotes explaining complicated cases. For example, in 1973 both the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic (two different countries at the time) were admitted, and in 1990 following reunification of Germany they merged into a single member state. There are other complicated cases, as well (two different Yemens were admitted in 1947 and 1967, and they later merged into a single member state). In contrast, the map misrepresents the source by over-simplifying and introducing glaring inaccuracies. It portrays Germany as a united country that joined the UN between 1960 and 1989. A map-maker and a Wikipedia editor may have felt that this simplification/distortion was acceptable in order to have a visual representation. WP:SYNTH tells us "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source," such as that a unified Germany joined the UN between 1960-1989. Presumably the UN would not be likely to publish such a map because they wouldn't want readers to have diminished confidence in the factual accuracy and reliability of UN documents. For the same reason, shouldn't the map be removed from Wikipedia? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Just tacking on here for good measure. If you are using third party source to create maps for articles, please please please include the source on the file description on Commons (I have now added this). This map is currently used on 22 different projects, and there's nothing to otherwise indicate to a Danish editor that the original citation for the map is on the English Wikipedia, as opposed to 21 other places. GMGtalk 12:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment - Sorry for this long, rambling attempt at weighing in on the situation, but I'm disappointed with how this entire dispute at the talk page has been handled thus far. I'll be honest in saying that I can't be certain that either Ythlev or Wadaad are approaching this without any biases (in fact I'd suspect that this is an issue of clashing perspectives above all else). Despite how my comments at Talk:United Nations overall leaned more in favor of Ythlev's position than Wadaad's position, I must note that I do not support the exact version as proposed by Ythlev for one glaring issue that I should've noticed sooner: it includes Donetsk and Luhansk. I'm not going to articulate any of my own personal thoughts regarding the status of those entities because this is not the place to have that discussion. The key issue is that it defies the consensus at the Limited recognition article. There are exactly 10 non-member states for which it would be accurate to give the title "de facto independent state with limited international recognition." The consensus is that Donetsk and Luhansk don't belong on that list. See [[File:Limited recognition.png]] for the current consensus on this matter.
Our goal should be to provide as much relevant information as possible without going against the consensuses which regard de facto states. I do think it's relevant that Taiwan is a former member of the United Nations, and I think it's preferable to not simply leave Western Sahara et al as empty or gray, as doing so already displays it in a separate color, so we might as well give an informative key so the readers can know why it's displayed separately. With all of that said, I condemn the comments from Wadaad that suggested that entities can be "too small and irrelevant" to put on the map, and I do not approve of Ythlev's version either. In short, it does look like a feud between WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ILIKEIT.
I think a lot of the arguments I'm seeing need to be cut out. If you'd like to suggest that it should simply be a map of the United Nations member states and their legally recognized land claims, then that's fine, but in doing so please be consistent. Wadaad changed [[File:United Nations Members (green–grey scheme).svg]] to list Morocco's borders and the SADR's borders separately, but every other state with limited recognition (including Palestine which is an observer and including Taiwan which was once a member) is not displayed as such. Including 1 but not the other 9 is just as problematic as including all 10 plus Donetsk and Luhansk. Just operate based on the existing consensus so we don't get bogged down by side arguments; if you want to change the consensus, do it at Limited recognition, not here or at Talk:United Nations. The "sides" of the disagreement should either be to display none of the non-member states or to display all of the non-member states, not to display some but not all, not to go too far and display ones which aren't even agreed to count as de facto states.
Lastly, to editors other than Wadaad and Ythlev: Yes, Taiwan is a de-facto independent state with limited international recognition. That's not a matter of whether or not it "should" be. This isn't about whether or not it is independent, this is about whether or not it should be displayed on the map. With all due respect to GMG, cut it out with the comparisons to whether or not a city should replace Islamabad as the capital of Pakistan. We already know which countries are and are not states with limited recognition. This has been settled already after years of RS-based discussions at Talk:List of states with limited recognition, and this isn't the place to change that. This is a highly contentious issue that needs to be handled delicately, and the arguments I'm seeing are deeply troubling because they veer off into unrelated arguments that would take us back to square one by having to argue about what countries even are de facto independent states.
Best wishes, Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Side-comment I hope that my ramblings above didn't come off as too harsh or too offensive to anyone. It's probably very visible that I found this entire mess to be very frustrating, but my intent isn't to burn bridges here. Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
AV1
I have been trying to wrestle this article down to something supported by third party sources. There is a small community of fans co-ordinating on social media because they prefer the version with the full HOWTO based almost exclusively on press releases and self-sourcing. I tried helping them via Twitter, but the indications there are that they aren't interested in anything less than a full technical manual, and aren't really that interested in finding secondary sources. I need to walk away before I lose my temper with them. Guy (help!) 20:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Guy, thanks for knowing when to walk away. There are so many ways for you to be useful, and it's not good to have you stuck in a frustrating situation.
- I wonder whether this might be best solved via transwiki. A full HOWTO manual would likely be welcome at b:Wikibooks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Father of somali music
On Music of Somalia article as well as other articles related to Somali music, editor MustafaO is attempting to include that artist Abdi Sinimo is known as "father of Somali music", they have a single source supporting this statement [55], and the source does not even state the exact wording they are using (source states "father of modern Somali song"), the only other academic source they've provided is a primary source interview. In contrast, the vast majority of published reliable sources state the artist known as "father of Somali music" is Abdullahi Qarshe, I have included numerous reputable sources e.g.[56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65] ...etc etc, but they continue to edit war across multiple pages. I have tried to explain that inclusion of Sinimo is undue and that most reputable sources give Qarshe the title to no avail. They do not even accept their own source that they've cited which states that "The Somali people and others regard you [as in Abdullahi Qarshe, not Sinimo] as the “Father of Somali Music” [66]. Any opinions would be appreciated. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Abdullahi Qarshe himself confirms that Balwo was started by Abdi Sinimo.
- Mohamed Rashid Sheikh Hassan (Interviewer): "So what followed?"
- Abdullahi Qarshe: "I arrived in Hargeisa and stayed with a family friend called Mahmud Abdi Arale. Abdi Sinimo’s belwo was already making an impact on the urban population. However, there were only a few musicians and they were either Arabs or Indians inspired by the new Somali genre of the belwo. There were two main characters: Ina Beenaale, an
- Indian, and Abdo Yusuf, a Yemeni. They played basic instruments, the most important being the violin. They invited me to join them, so I did, but I was not yet really proficient in playing. We tried to create softer lyrics than classical Somali poetry and accompany it with music. In the beginning, it was not easy, and our band consisted of a mixture of
- clapping, the tambourine, and drumming."
- In the same interview Abdullahi Qarshe confirms that he considered Abdi Sinimo to be the "Father of Somali Music:
- Mohamed Rashid Sheikh Hassan (Interviewer):
- "The Somali people and others regard you as the “Father of Somali Music.” Is this how you see yourself?"
- Abdullahi Qarshe:
- "No. There was always music: for weddings, lullabies, watering animals, working, dancing (shurbo), night dancing (sacab habeenkii la tumo), exorcism (saar). All these existed, so one can only say that there were no musical instruments to accompany them. One cannot say, therefore, that I am the “Father of Somali Music.” Even modern music was in the air at the time of Abdi Sinimo, who is widely regarded as the genius who formulated and organized it into the belwo and thus took well deserved credit and honor for it. Perhaps, I am the first Somali to set Somali songs to the music of the lute (kaman)."
- Source: [67] (Bear in mind the user Kzl55 keeps removing this sourced edit unjustifiably) which amounts to vandalism.
- It would be important to make note of the fact that the Balwo genre was, in fact, in existence before Qarshe and was founded by Abdi Sinimo. A fact that cannot be dismissed.
- Also this user Kzl55 continuously is removing sourced, accredited and referenced work in the Abdullahi Qarshe, Abdi Sinimo and Balwo pages. There are many sources that also claim Abdi Sinimo to be the 'Father of Somali Music', such as [Horn of Africa. Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160.
Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo
]. There are many other sources that make the same claim. What is extremely concerning is the fact that he constantly vandalises these pages with unwarranted removals of these sourced, accredited and referenced works. - MustafaO (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- All you have provided is a single source, and it does not even state that Sinimo was "father of Somali music", instead it claims he was "father of the modern Somali song". As such inclusion of Sinimo is undue since vast majority of reputable published sources (see above) clearly state that Qarshe was father of Somali music. Even the other source you use which is a primary source interview of Qarshe, also states that Somali people consider Qarshe to be father of Somali music. --Kzl55 (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- The same argument can also be said when you provided a single source claiming that Qarshe pioneered the Balwo genres versus the vast majority of reputable and accredited published sources that clearly state that it was Abdi Sinimo who pioneered and founded the Balwo and subsequent heelo genres. Yet you insisted on forcefully adding that one erroneous citation despite the fact that it went against scholarly consensus on this issue.
- There are over 10 different sources and accredited references that make no mention of Qarshe as having had any involvement whatsoever in the development and pioneering of the Balwo and follow up heelo genres, whereas it is attributed solely to Abdi Sinimo. These sources are as follows:
- There is no issue in Qarshe being considered the 'Father of Somali Music', no editor, including myself, ever removed that title from him. However, the title is not exclusive and can be given to more than one person depending on the context. Abdi Sinimo was the pioneer of the genre. Qarshe later put to the flute the singing styles of those who came before him. Hence there being sources that claim Abdi Sinimo with the title.
- MustafaO (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Please stay on topic, you are making the discussion hard to follow. The issue at hand is the title of "father of Somali music" that you've been pushing and edit warring over, so far you have presented a single source supporting that statement, and that source does not even match your wording (source states "father of modern Somali song"). In contrast, the vast majority of reputable published sources clearly state that artist Qarshe is the one known as "father of Somali music" (numerous citations above). As such presenting another artist with the title is WP:UNDUE per Wikipedia guidelines. It has nothing to do with exclusivity, and more to do with what majority of published reputable sources state. And according to sources we have, describing Sinimo as such is simply undue. This is very straightforward and does not require all this back and forth, nor all the edit warring. Also, going forward please keep the discussion here, we seem to be having the same discussion across multiple talk pages. --Kzl55 (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- The wording was already edited to align to the published work. The work was already edited to: 'Father of modern Somali song', yet you removed that aswell. You keep removing published and referenced work which amounts to edit warring and vandalism. It is unjustifiable that you keep on doing so, considering the fact that it is a published work, so therefore cannot ever be deduced as being WP:UNDUE. The title doesn't need to be exclusively championed to one individual as these titles are subjective and these published works reflect that. But it seems that you insist on removing edited work unjustifiably.
- MustafaO (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- We are in the neutrality noticeboard, your inclusion is clearly WP:UNDUE for the reasons explained above. Changing a few words does not make much difference, the meaning of the sentence you are attempting to include does not change. You are not disputing the fact that the vast majority of sources attribute the name "Father of Somali music" to Qarshe, and yet you've been edit warring to attribute the title to Sinimo. Now a single statement from one source is clearly undue per WP guidelines. You clearly disagree. I suggest we stop it here and let other editors weigh in. --Kzl55 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- The titles reflect two completely different things. The titles reflect completely different realities. Abdi Sinimo established the lyrical genre so therefore he is the uncontested 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. This is very different from Qarshe, who is described as the 'Father of Somali Music'. I don't see where there needs to be a removal of a published work as the titles imply two completely different histories in the tradition of Somali Music. I've read the Wikipedia guidelines and there is no contradiction because the titles are completely different. Let us allow other editors to give their own opinions.
- MustafaO (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Earlier in this very page you were arguing he is "father of Somali music", you are contradicting yourself. Pivoting to this new wording does not change the fact that it is still undue, particularly given that the vast majority of published reputable sources (upwards of 10 linked above) state that Qarshe was "father of Somali music". On Wikipedia, exceptional claims require exceptional sources (read: multiple high-quality sources) per WP:REDFLAG. There is no need to further obfuscate the issue by long text walls, I suggest we wait for other editors. Also please justify your text when you reply per WP convention. --Kzl55 (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- There is no contradiction. Firstly, because Qarshe himself acknowledged (see:[78]), that he considered Abdi Sinimo to have been more deserving as he quoted him DIRECTLY when faced with the question regarding if he is the 'Father of Somali Music'. The argument was to show there is no exclusivity with these titles. When you made a mention of the wordings and used it as an issue, I chose to edit the title to clearly reflect the wording of the published work and you still committed an act of vandalism by removing the source and altering the article. I have no qualms about waiting for other editors to weigh in.
- MustafaO (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Please justify your text to make it easier to follow by editors. We dont need to hear why you've abandoned "father of Somali music" and now pivoting to another title, you have failed to provide more than a single source for your chosen title. Inclusion thus is still undue, please reread my post above, on Wikipedia exceptional claims require exceptional sources, minority views are not usually included in Wikipedia articles precisely because inclusion would breach WP:N and WP:BALANCE. Now that you've abandoned both original title you attempted to include, as well as your claim of there being "many sources that also claim Abdi Sinimo to be the 'Father of Somali Music'", please perform a self-revert on all the articles you've been edit warring on. --Kzl55 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Inclusion is NOT WP:UNDUE because this is not an issue of a minority view versus a majority view. The titles are completely different and are reflective of different realities hence why I edited the title to reflect the sourced content. I dont understand how you can make an allegation such as me 'abandoning both the original title and there being many sources that claim Abdi Sinimo is the Father of Somali Music'... And at the same time you say: 'We dont need to hear why you've abandoned "father of Somali music" and now pivoting to another title'. So in fact you were never interested in having a discussion because had you read my comments you would have realised that I sourced more than two comments in which there is reasonable argument to give him such a title... However I edited the title to remove any ambiguity and further stop any act of vandalism on your part. Unfortunately you did not take heed. Having said that, the titles 'Father of Somali Music' is very different to 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. A fact that you continuously attempt at distorting by injecting the majority versus minority view which is unsubstantial, simmply because there is NO contradiction. The titles are different. Didn't you say you would allow the editrs to weigh in? Why are you continuing to fuel the debate and then claim to withdraw at the same time? MustafaO (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Please keep it brief, continuing to post repetitive walls of text is not helpful. The titles are the same, you made one claim, and once you realised it was not correct you pivoted to change a few words. And it IS a minority view, given that you have provided a single source supporting your statement, contrary to your statement of there being "many sources" supporting it, you've entirely abandoned that argument and are now getting into the realm of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. This is not helpful. I will await other editors to weigh in. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The fact remains that the inclusion isn't WP:UNDUE, here are TWO sources that can be used to make the argument for keeping the title of 'Father of Somali Music', (see:[79]) and (see:[80]). The only reason why I am repeating myself CONSTANTLY is because of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Interesting you've leveled that at me when the reality is that I've mentioned on so many occasions (please refer to the discussion on this page) as to the reasons as to WHY I edited the title despite it being valid to use. I mentioned clearly and many times why I edited it. At this point I would just be repeating myself. The titles that were given to both Abdullahi Qarshe and Abdi Sinimo are different now. So it's irrelevant to continue making the minority versus majority argument since the tiles denote two completely different meanings. You continue to say you will wait for the other editors to comment, yet you keep interjecting. This certainly is not helpful. The articles do not need continuous and disruptive acts of vandalism. MustafaO (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Earlier in the thread you stated: "I've read the Wikipedia guidelines and there is no contradiction because the titles are completely different", you can not use a single source to support two "completely different titles". You have a single source supporting each statement, and your second source (the interview) clearly states that Somalis, as well as others, consider Qarshe to be "father of Somali music". In contrast to your single source statements I have presented over 10 published reliable sources stating Qarshe is "father of Somali music", this ends the discussing on WP:UNDUE. Inclusion of minority views is very problematic, and as stated previously, for exceptional claims, you must present exceptional sources, this is WP guidelines. You do not have that, there is no need to go any further. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Whether or not having a single source supporting each statement is completely irrelevant to the point being that it is vandalism for you to remove the sourced content since the titles denote TWO completely different meanings. The titles 'Father of Somali Music' and 'Father of the Modern Somali Song' are two different titles. This is why it cannot be seen as being contradictory as this is NOT a case of inclusion of minority views. The titles, live I've said many times, are different. Inclusion therefore, is not WP:UNDUE. I literally quoted more than one source, so to keep repeating a fabrication is unwarranted. The sources do not contradict each other and there is no exclusivity as this issue is more likely than not, subjective. It doesn't warrant continued vandalism and unwarranted removals on your part. MustafaO (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Its not vandalism to remove minority views supported by a single source. This is what WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are all about. Wikipedia articles are never based on minority views. As stated, you've only provided a single source per statement (one of them actually stating that Somali people and others consider Qarshe as father of Somali music), that right there should end the discussion. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
It is vandalism, simply because it is NOT a minority view that you are removing. It is a published and referenced work which confers a title ('Father of Modern Somali Song) completely DIFFERENT to the title you claim it is contradicting ('Father of Somali Music'). The whole premise of your argument rests on the point that the source I quoted is a minority conflicting with more referenced works. The FACT is, that's absolutely NOT the case because the the titles in the articles (as currently stands) are completely different regarding the respective individuals involved, Abdi Sinimo and Abdullahi Qarshe. Therefore it can never be considered as being WP:UNDUE. MustafaO (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- It is a minority view if you have one single source supporting it. Please read WP:WEIGHT. And it will most certainly be WP:UNDUE if both were present within the same text, your argument for the titles being different wont work. You are simply pivoting from edit warring to include the first, to now edit warring to include the second, they are interchangeable, and the wording is near the same. Remember, you were arguing for "father of Somali music" just a few hours ago. And even if they were not, it would still be undue inclusion, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources, you have failed to provide that. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The reason why it is NOT WP:UNDUE is because the differences in the titles reflect TWO completely different realities. So recycling the same argument over and over is now redundant. Here are examples that prove these titles are not variations in any way. They are not merely different wordings. The sources itself explain clearly WHY the titles were given.
1. One source says: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160. There is a correlation between penning and creating the genre and the title 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. This is CLEAR from the source.
2. Another source states the reason as to why many consider Qarshe to be the 'Father of Somali Music' is when he said: 'Perhaps, I am the first Somali to set Somali songs to the music of the lute (kaman)' Source: Interview with the late Abdullahi Qarshe (1994) [81]. So the inclusion is NOT WP:UNDUE in any way.
So the majority views versus minority is redundant as you can see here, the titles were given to reflect two completely different realities.
This whole section of your argument: And even if they were not, it would still be undue inclusion'Bold text' is arguing on the premise that there the titles are the same or a variant of the same original title, which it isn't. Refer to: (Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160 [82] and Interview with the late Abdullahi Qarshe (1994) [83] to see the reasons why the titles reflect different meanings as the sources leave very little room to argue otherwise. MustafaO (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- You are now just regurgitating the same text in an attempt to obfuscate the discussion. What is your argument? That Sinimo is "father of modern Somali song"? Well, you've only provided a single source for that. As such inclusion of such exceptional claim is clearly undue. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Why is that argument clearly WP:UNDUE? It doesn't contradict any claim that Qarshe is the 'Father of Somali Music'. So I do not understand why you keep pushing the same argument and obfuscating the discussion.
1. The first source was (see:[84]), Qarshe considered Abdi Sinimo to have been more deserving as he quoted him DIRECTLY when faced with the question regarding if he is the 'Father of Somali Music'... This was the one of the sources that I used to make the earlier argument.
2. The second was (see: [85]). Where an argument to dub him with the title can easily be validated per the editing regulations by Wikipedia.
I explained the reason as to WHY I edited the title to 'Father of Modern Somali Song' for two main reasons: a. To stop your unwarranted removal and vandalism on the page. b. To align the title exactly to the worded source. MustafaO (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- It is clearly undue because the claim of Sinimo being "father of modern Somali song" is only supported by a single source, it is an exceptional claim not backed by exceptional sources. And adding such an exceptional claim that is not backed by exceptional main-stream sources will be giving it undue weight. Wikipedia does not include minority views, unless on articles related to the subject of minority views. This is not going anywhere, this will be my last response here until another editor weighs in. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
There are over 10 different sources (see: [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94] and [95]) stating that Abdi Sinimo penned and pioneered the Balwo, which was the exact reason as to why the source you constantly remove makes that claim that he is the Father of the modern Somali Song: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160. Refer to: [96].
I await the other editors to comment, especially those who are independent from the issue at hand. The sources are all correlated.
MustafaO (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- You need to stay on topic, look at the title of this discussion, I have explained to you numerous times now that we are discussing the "father of modern Somali music" title, and not a single one of the links you have posted supports that. This is clear filibuster attempt. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
As a Somali, I have personally never heard of this individual (Abdi Sinimo). I am with Kzl55 that the statement father of Somali music is a bit excessive. Wadaad (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Summary of argument
On Music of Somalia article as well as other articles related to Somali music, editor MustafaO first attempted to include that artist Abdi Sinimo is known as "father of Somali music" (e.g.[97], [98]). They have provided one single source supporting this statement [99] (the source actually states "father of modern Somali song", not "father of Somali music"). In contrast, the vast majority of published reliable sources state the artist known as "father of Somali music" is Abdullahi Qarshe e.g.[100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109] (...etc etc). At this stage MustaphaO abandoned their original claim of Abdi Sinimo being "father of Somali music", and instead opted to pivot to use the wording: "father of modern Somali song", seeing as the only source they have provided uses this wording. I have tried to explain that inclusion of Sinimo is undue and that the vast majority of reputable sources give Qarshe the title. I have cited both WP:UNDUE, explaining that inclusion of Sinimo, using a single source, gives undue importance and weight and goes against neutrality guidelines by promotion of minority views. I have also cited WP:EXCEPTIONAL in relation to the fact that exceptional statements require exceptional sourcing numerous times in the discussion(s), and yet the editor continues to edit war against all evidence. They do not seem to even accept their own source that they've cited previously which confirms that "The Somali people and others regard you [as in Abdullahi Qarshe, not Sinimo] as the “Father of Somali Music” [110]. Any opinions would be appreciated. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Is that your own made up summary? It's very interesting that you attempt to distort the reality of the discussion to suit your agenda. However, I can easily give my own explanation without having to distort the facts. I will clearly outline my contribution.
The user (Kzl55), attempted many times to remove a sourced content from the articles Balwo, Abdullahi Qarshe and Abdi Sinimo. His main contention was that Abdullahi Qarshe was unanimously agreed upon that he was the 'Father of Somali Music' therefore the title is exclusive to him and nobody else warrants having the same title. After that I posted more than one published work that makes the case that Abdi Sinimo also can hold the same title. The source is here (see: Qarshe himself acknowledged (see:[111]) that he considered Abdi Sinimo to have been more deserving of the title as he quoted Sinimo DIRECTLY when faced with the question regarding if he is the 'Father of Somali Music'. Another source that I used to make the claim was the Horn of Africa, Journal, Vol. 15 (see here: [112]) which per Wikipedia regulations, can make the exact same case. After constant vandalism and unwarranted removals by the user (Kzl55), I edited the title to reflect the sourced edit, which was 'Father of the Modern Somali Song', which was different to the title of 'Father of Somali Music' . The primary reason why I made this edit was to stop the unwarranted edit warring and removals by this user (Kzl55). However, he continues to barrage the pages with removals unjustifiably although the titles are different and not the same. There are over 10 different sources (see: [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121] and [122]) that confirm why this title was conferred upon Sinimo. Please read: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160. Refer to: [123]. Despite this he continuously vandalised the paged with the removals citing the titles are the same, where I made the argument that it isn't the same. The argument I made was when I said: "The sources itself explain clearly WHY the titles were given.
1. One source says: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160 (see: [[124]). There is a correlation between penning and creating the genre and the title 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. This is CLEAR from the source.
2. Another source states the reason as to why many consider Qarshe to be the 'Father of Somali Music' is when he said: 'Perhaps, I am the first Somali to set Somali songs to the music of the lute (kaman)' Source: Interview with the late Abdullahi Qarshe (1994) [125]. So the inclusion is NOT WP:UNDUE in any way."
This is the summary of the dispute. I would hope that the matter is resolved and fixed ad that the vandalism doesn't continue further by this user. MustafaO (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Would be best to restore the articles in question as there is quite the stretch of the source here.--Moxy 🍁 23:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Walter Kuhn
MyMoloboaccount insists on emphasizing that the German historian Walter Kuhn was a Nazi and just generally a bad guy and a hack scholar. This is although I have found numerous sources, including by holocaust scholars Debórah Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt, which refer to Kuhn as an excellent scholar (see here) and the fact that Kuhn continued working and publishing until 1983. MyMolobaccount's focus on Kuhn's maps as propaganda appears to have been caused by this discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, in which I was able to show that Kuhn's maps are still being cited in RS in the 2010s.
MyMoloboaccount has created entire sections in the article just to tell us how bad Kuhn is in the title before anyone even reads it (i.e. [126]. When I tried to move this information to the appropriate "Appraisals and Criticism" section [127] he simply restored it. At one point the entire Second World War section was a series of highly charged titles, (compare before and after my edit here [128]). Most recently he added that Kuhn was a Nazi to the lead [129], in his edit summary claiming it had been removed from the lead when in fact the fact that Kuhn joined the NSDAP in 1940 is cited in the lead currently. He has insisted on adding the word Nazi to various other parts of the article, see [130], and has added WP:UNDUE criticism of Kuhn's scholarship to the lead [131].
I have tried to be fair in my assessment of Kuhn, adding most of the information now found in the article about his prewar politics and his involvement as an advisor to the Nazi resettlement program of German minorities during the war. Where criticism of Kuhn has been made, I have added it (see, e.g., my edits [132] [133]). MyMoloboaccount does not appear interested in any nuance on the issue. Often if I am able to check the source he used (sometimes he cites in such a way that this is impossible), I discover that the criticisms of Kuhn that he cites include Kuhn in a list of names and thus do not deal with Kuhn specifically at all, or that MyMoloboaccount has included a critical comment about Kuhn while leaving out a favorable one in the same work. I have only gotten him to use the talk page twice (one time he just went there to say he was undoing an edit I had made), despite having posted there numerous times about various issues.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Kuhn was an infamous Nazi who advocated superiority of German culture and was involved in planning ethnic cleansing of Jews and Poles(euphemistically named “resettlement” above).Like many Nazis he continued to work in post-war Germany.
- There is absolutely no reason to remove his Nazi and nationalistic views from the article.And Kuhn is quite pointed out as working with SS on ethnic cleansing in Poland.
- The user above unfortunately tries to show Kuhn as some respectable “scholar”, while sources are clear that he was a Nazi involved with ethnic cleansing.
- Also,even sources and authors used by user above often mention his connection to Nazis and nationalism-something omitted in above statement, other sources praising him in some cases are former Nazis themselves.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- That is blatant POV. One of Kuhn's articles was republished in English in 2017 [134]. Or look at the numbers of recent citations for his main works [135], [136], [137], [138]. The scholars included in these citations include Poles, Germans, English-speakers. While there are justifable criticisms of Kuhn's work, you can't just dismiss him as a Nazi.
- And I am not talking about "removing" the things he said or did in support of Nazism. I'm talking about portraying them in a neutral fashion. Kuhn is not "infamous". Only specialists know who he is. He was not a very important figure for the Nazis. He was not in the SS. He advised on the resettlement of Germans, but he was never directly involved in ethnically cleansing Poles beyond having written an academic position paper that had no impact.
- And I'm curious how Debórah Dwork or Robert Jan van Pelt can be considered Nazis.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- The question here is WP:DUE weight. The article should devote some space to personal details, some space for pre-war work, some space for post-war work (35+ years as an academic), and some space for the war (and whatever pre-war Nazi involvement). How much is DUE here? I would guesstimate (and this depends on extent of coverage in 3rd party coverage) at 20%-35% of the article - in the lead as well - devoted to role in Nazi period.Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- The most balanced profile of Kuhn I've seen is by Wilhelm Fielitz in the Handbuch der voelkischen Wissenschaften which covers his whole life. It offers slightly more than a page to Kuhn before the war, less than a page to during, and probably a whole page to after (the preview isn't showing the middle of the three pages unfortunately). Unsurprisingly, favorable or mostly favorable profiles tend to leave out what he did in the war and just focus on before and after (Angermann, Rhode, Weczerka). I'll note that only Rhode of those three is a former Nazi. At least two articles in the bibliography deal specifically with the problems of Kuhn's work pre-war and during the war (Pinwinkler, Michelsen "Von Breslau nach Hamburg", which only covers Kuhn on two pages though). Otherwise scholarship that mentions Kuhn (Burleigh's Germany Turns East, Haar's Historiker im Nationalsozialismus) mentions him mostly in passing, sometimes with more, sometimes with less, biographical information, but generally not much (if anything) post-war. What I'd consider to be a more balanced portrayal of Kuhn before and during the war (though still largely made in passing) is in Chu's The German Minority in Interwar Poland. He gets mentioned on a single page of a number of books, but these tend to rely on Burleigh, I would say. Most negative citations on Kuhn are from work by Haar, Michelsen, and Burleigh, and don't discuss him in any depth. I'm still waiting on a few sources on that, however. MyMoloboaccount cites prodominently Polish sources and I have found decyphering what those sources are very difficult. I'm currently waiting on what I expect to be a negative scholarly assessment of Kuhn's postwar work by Marek Cetwiński (ironically Kuhn tore apart Cetwinski's dissertation in a review ten years before Cetwinski wrote that).--Ermenrich (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)