Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 66

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

→

Archive 70

Breitbart News lede is violating WP:BALANCE

Hello, would you please re-open the discussion that was closed a few minutes ago at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breitbart_News about sourcing? WP:BALANCE says, "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." Reputable sources contradict; The NYT calls Breitbart conservative-leaning. [1] Conservative-leaning contradicts far-right. Thus, according to WP:BALANCE, we need to describe both points of view. Técnico (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

All your 38 edits at Wikipedia appear to be connected with this issue. Please respect the advice given at talk, namely that Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 5#Should Breitbart be described as far right? is a recently closed discussion, and it included mentions of the discussions before that. There will always be a source that has a view somewhat different from those expressed by others, and that is not a reason to contradict reality. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq, what is your point about the 38 edits? You might be committing the ad hominem fallacy. The point is The New York Times calls Breitbart conservative-leaning. Leaning contradicts far. Thus, per WP:BALANCE, both views must be described. Técnico (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No one here has the motivation to spend the rest of their life arguing with accounts created for a single purpose. Editors have known since 2006 that dealing with agenda-driven accounts is unproductive—2006 is when WP:SPA was created, and it is constructive to look at the original 2006 essay. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq, thank you for the link, which led me to this sentence: "New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility; but they should also be aware that, while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards." The Wikipedia standard WP:BALANCE is clearly being violated. Técnico (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You have repeatedly told us your opinion. However, your opinion is, as repeated discussions have demonstrated, not shared by the broader Wikipedia community, which has, through several repeated discussions about this topic and a standing consensus, determined that the standard is, in fact, being upheld in this case. While consensus can change, repeatedly bringing up closed discussions can also be considered disruptive and tendentious editing, particularly when there is no significant new evidence nor is there any apparent broader movement to change the consensus. In short, it's time to drop the stick, move on from this topic and contribute productively elsewhere on the encyclopedia. If you cannot, then it will be self-evident that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE doesn't mean we should favor any one particular source, especially if it's reliability is questionable (See WP:FRINGE). It just means that sometimes in order to maintain WP:NPOV on a subject with multiple widely accepted viewpoints, each POV should be represented accordingly. Darknipples (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Also "conservative leaning" dose not contradict "far right". Of course a lot depends on what you mean by conservative, but issues like Anti-immigration, attitudes towards women's right, attitudes towards, but I do not need to go on, often cross over between "conservative" and far right.

You can conservative and not far right, but (I would argue) you cannot be far right and not be conservative. So no it may not be a contradiction.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

While it is impossible to ignore the number of sources calling Breitbart far right that it must be included, it's also a subjective term (particularly the NYT's statement) and the current first sentence of the lede violates NPOV. It's definitely a fact we can say Breitbart is right-leaning, but whether they go as far as the "label" far right suggests is a subjective measure, the opinion of many press sources, and thus that should be called out later as a claim. eg Instead of Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart or Breitbart.com) is a far-right American news, opinion and commentary website founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart News has published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories, as well as intentionally misleading stories. we should be saying Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart or Breitbart.com) is a conservative American news, opinion and commentary website founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart News is frequently considered a far right publications by media critics, and the website has been found to have published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories, as well as intentionally misleading stories. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The current text reflects the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources. We are not required by WP:BALANCE to replace it with weasel words and shilly-shallying flab. --14:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Brietbart is far right. In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue. This would be major WP:FALSEBALANCE. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This has been settled by a recent, extensive RfC in which it was shown that more than 38 diverse, reliable, international sources routinely refer to Breitbart as far-right. The WP:SPAs and throwaway accounts who don't give a damn about building an encyclopedia and who are repeatedly rehashing this are being disruptive and should be blocked if they persist.- MrX 15:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that while I agree that list of 38 sources all ID Brietbart as far right, it also seems to be a narrow set of sources. Using google news, excluding hits on Breitbart itself ("-site:breitbart.com"), I get:

• 36,600 hits for "breitbart news" "conservative" -"far right" -"site:breitbart.com"(eg excluding that term)
• 3,500 hits for "breitbart news" "far right" -"conservative" -"site:breitbart.com"

And for more narrowness, adding in Bannon's name so that we're likely focusing on articles talking about the website rather than name-dropping:

• 12,500 hits for "breitbart news" "bannon" "conservative" -"far right" -"site:breitbart.com"
• 2,420 hits for "breitbart news" "bannon" -"conservative" "far right" -"site:breitbart.com"

Now this doesn't mean all those sources are RSes, obviously, and not all of them are going to be about Breitbart news, but scanning the first 3 pages of results for all show an approximately equal hit-or-miss in terms of RSes. Every disclaimer of GHITS applies and a more detailed analysis would be needed to assure this is the right conclusion after only using RSes, discarding opinion pieces, etc. I would not disagree that a number of quality RSes do call Breitbart far right, but just to point out "here's a selected number of sources" without reviewing the whole of the sources (which from the talk page, has never been done) is a false balance, appearing to disproportionately pick and chose from a minority of sources to make it appear as the majority point. At minimum the GHIT test should be sufficient to recognize that calling Breitbart "far right" as fact is not appropriate, though it still is appropriate to note this assertion by those 38 sources. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

We need to bear in mind that different sources will use different terms to describe the same thing. The term "far right" for example is favored by news media, while academic sources generally reserve that term for neo-fascists. Articles should clearly convey information to readers and avoid ambiguous descriptions. I think the most common description is "right-wing." TFD (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Is the following argument sound? If not, which premiss or deduction is not correct?

1. WP:BALANCE says, "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance."

2. CNN is a reputable source.

3. CNN calls Breitbart far-right.

4. The New York Times is a reputable source.

5. The New York Times calls Breitbart conservative-leaning. [2]

6. Leaning contradicts far.

7. Therefore, reputable sources contradict.

8. The New York Times is relatively equal in prominence to CNN. (It can be argued that NYT is much more.)

9. Hence, by WP:BALANCE, we need to describe both points of view and work for balance. --Técnico (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much all of this has already been discussed to death. Just read the talk page archives. This is just WP:REHASH. You need *NEW* arguments here, or this is pointless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If the argument above has been already discussed, then what premiss or deduction was found to be incorrect? I searched the talk pages. The word leaning appears three times. It seems to never have appeared in the context of the 9-point argument posted above. --Técnico (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Can we have a source that says that leaning and far are mutually exclusive (n this context, as after all you cannot lean against something you are far away from).Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Técnico: - The term "Far-Right" is undoubtedly not contradictory to "conservative leaning". "Far-Left" could be considered contradictory, or possibly even "liberal leaning", as they are more accurately "opposite inversions" of Far-Right and conservative leaning, but it seems like you are only trying to abide by the letter of BALANCE while violating the spirit of its underlying principles. Do not try to use WP:BALANCE just to make a WP:POINT. The best advice I can give is to try and listen to others to try and possibly find a compromise that will lead to a consensus. Volunteer Marek made a very good point about this discussion being a WP:REHASH, more or less. See...

• [Archive "Breitbart_again"]
• [Archive Breitbart_Global_News_Syndicate_-_Reliability_Dispute]
• [Archive Breitbart.com]

DN 09:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree with saying that "far right" and "conservative leaning" are not contradictory. "Leaning" implies being somewhat close to the center... "far" implies being... well... FAR from the center. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Except that "conservative" and "right wing" are not wholly synonymous (hell neither is "Conservative" and "conservative", are they libertarian conservatives, Neoconservatives, European style conservatives (much more like the Democrat party)). "leaning" also just means Tendency or inclination. Thus whilst (it is true) some one can be conservative leaning and not far right it is not true to say that someone cannot be far right and have conservative tendencies.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If far right means fascist and conservative leaning means Tory Reform Group, then they are contradictory, but if far right means to the right of traditional Republicans and conservative means to the right of traditional Republicans, then they mean the same same thing. Hence the American conservative movement was called "far right." Hence a USA Today article refers to Goldwater as both "conservative" and "far right," using the terms interchangeably.[3] Readers are able to understand the use of the terms by understanding the context in which they are used. America has an exceptional political tradition and the application of foreign concepts such as far right and conservative can be confusing. We should not present a difference in use of terminology as a difference of interpretation. Also, we should not use this difference to imply something not meant by the sources. TFD (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Although I am sympathetic to TFD's analysis its application raises WP:OR concerns. As always our description should reflect sources, weighing frequency (see MASEM's analysis) and source quality. Our own analyses of what ideologies constitute or comprise others are less relevant. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• There appears to have been extensive discussion and consensus resulting in the current description of Breitbart News as "far-right" (the original poster really should have included pointers to those discussions, because otherwise this discussion is not properly informed). Nothing presented here has shed any new light on that consensus; this exercise does look much more akin to forum-shopping by an agenda account, and we shouldn't be enabling it. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

MastCell, there is no forum shopping happening here. The original post asks that the discussion be reopened at the Breitbart News talk page. Furthermore, there is no consensus about whether leaning contradicts far. Técnico (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:T.C3.A9cnico_.28moved_from_WP:AN.29. Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Redskin (slang)

After a long period of stability, User:Bromley86 began editing Redskin (slang) by removing content which had citations from good sources. POV editing of this article has been a common, if not a frequent problem, and my practice had become reversion without comment, which I did initially, Revision: I did not revert without comment until after my first two attempts to restore cited content with brief edit summaries were themselves reverted.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC) I only later responded on the talk page: Talk:Redskin_(slang)#Lead & scalping. I had thought there had been a restoration of stability, but the current state of the article is the result of removal of any content that addresses whether the term "redskins" has any relationship to the history of paying bounties for scalps, except to claim the relationship was debunked by one source, which I see as a misreading of that source.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

If you read the rubric at the top, you'll see that you're meant to have made an attempt to resolve this on the talk page first. Had you done that, rather than reverting without edit summaries (which is an awful habit), then I rather suspect we'd have managed to deal with this. I suggest that you try that first, but if you'd rather deal with it here, that's fine with me. For the record, I am not an American, of any kind, and literally have no dog in this fight. Bromley86 (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I should mention that all of my changes were explained and, when you look at the cites, they now explicitly support the points that they're attached to. This was not the case before. For example, in the first para of the Body:

The origin of the term "redskin" in English is debated. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) had cited its earliest use in a 1699 letter from an English colonialist, Samuel Smith, living in Hadley, Massachusetts, which supposedly contains the following passage: "Ye firste Meetinge House was solid mayde to withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins." Based on this source, the OED suggests the term was specifically applied to the Delaware Indians and "referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint."[4]

That cite supported literally none of the points made. This is one of the issues I've addressed in my edits. Anyhoo, I'm dealing with the dispute on the Talk page and won't check back here unless pinged. Bromley86 (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I made a choice not to engage further on the talk page after Bromley86 made an explicit statement that editors have the right to interpret sources based upon their own opinions rather than include all and note the discrepancies and controversies. Editors have to summarize and select, but dismissing the work of Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, a PhD historian, by saying "There will be plenty of qualified people who have misrepresented things..." and saying it is biased is beyond the pale. Then there is the news report on a talk on "redskins" and bounties given by Michael Taylor in 2013, while he was a professor of anthropology at Colgate University.

Sudip Bhatttacharya (November 6, 2013). "'Redskin': A fun team name or racial epithet?". LNP MEDIA GROUP, Inc. Retrieved May 9, 2017. Michael Taylor, a Seneca Indian and an assistant professor at Colgate University: 'The term "redskin" comes from the Colonial era, when some Native Americans were killed in clashes with newly arrived settlers and others were hunted down for a bounty.'

This has been repeated dubbed "irrelevant" and deleted (it is currently missing), apparently based upon a mistaken assumption about the topic of this article. It is not a dictionary entry closely tied to the etymology of the term, since as "slang" there is really no such thing. Non-standard words used by different groups may have radically different meanings, yet the recent edits have removed much of the content attempting to address these meanings from a NPOV. I would welcome actual collaboration to improve the "origins and meaning" section, but that would mean recognition that all of the previous content supported by reliable sources has validity.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

There is also the issue of whether a statement on the existence of the debate regarding redskins, bounties, and scalping belongs in the lead section. As one of the major points of public controversy, I think that it does.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You what? What I actually said was that we should always evaluate sources. I did not say we should ignore her opinion, just that her opinion was not sufficient for inclusion in the Lead. Write the Body, summarise in the Lead, and it is not sufficiently important to be in the Lead. Mind you, the fact that you seem to be unable to recognise that she appears to not present a neutral POV on this subject is of concern, as is your willingness to believe statements made with no support. This is almost the very definition of POV pushing, and yet you accuse me of it. Priceless!

As to the Taylor reference, I'm not sure what your point is. Firstly, it's not clear from that article that he actually said that.[5] Secondly, the article gives no evidence to support the assertion. In the face of an article published by an expert in a journal that specifically says this etymology is made up,[6] we assume it's made up. Bromley86 (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

As there's now a NPOV tag added to the article by User:WriterArtistDC, I'd appreciate someone here reviewing my changes to confirm that, whatever else they might be, they're not violations of the NPOV policy, so we can remove the tag.diff Happy to answer why I don't believe my edits are POV-based (just ping me), although a quick review of my edit history should confirm that (my last foci were the Hollow Moon "hypothesis" and obscure African kings). I'd also point to the edit summary by WADC: "Extensive POV editing and OR". There's zero WP:OR in my version; if they're wrong on that count, it rather calls into question the accuracy of the POV accusation. Bromley86 (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

That there is a fundamental difference requiring participation by additional editors is the reason for posting here. In my experience this may take a while, but the POV tag can remain, and there should be no further changes to the article until there is a resolution. I have begun a draft in my workspace to indicate the changes I would make. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

None of which addresses my point that your accusation of OR was as baseless as your accusation of POV editing after zero effort to discuss: that's resorting to ad hominem to try to get what you want. I offered to go down the WP:3O route, which was the correct resolution to a content dispute.

It's interesting to note that you appear to have had a similar view to mine a few years ago: This is not an article about scalping, but about the meaning of the slang term redskin, so scalping is barely mentioned since, as you say, scalping has only a tentative relationship to the term.[7] Not the words of someone who one would expect to disagree with the removal of the scalping suggested etymology from the Lead, an etymological claim that has been described as an "unfounded",[8] and "fictional",[9] by Goddard, and "revisionist history" in Indian Country Today.[10] Bromley86 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Again the confusion between rejecting "redskin only means scalp" and accepting that "Redskins" was the term most often used to refer to "Indians" by those collecting scalps for bounty. The latter is what Michael Taylor is saying (thus that ref's importance), and the 19th century newspaper stories are examples. However, isolated use of the term redskins for scalps becoming part of Native American oral history is likely within the context of collecting scalps for bounty. Did a bounty hunter never point to his collected scalps and say "I have a hundred redskins here."? Is oral history to be rejected entirely? Should a non-literate society be reduced to what is reported about them by their colonizers, including a scholar from the Smithsonian Institution, which has no clean record with regard to exploitation? The problem is attempting to establish any single entomology for a slang term. There are three groupings of early usage: pigment, skin color and scalp-hunting. Each has its validity and sources, and none refutes any of the others given the doubts voiced by scholars themselves regarding the certainty of any of their work (and to say they do is OR an POV). Any or all meanings may have been used by some groups, but none consistently. Nothing close to a standard meaning emerged until American culture had standardized the stereotypes of the Native American at the turn of the 20th century; a savage redskin when they attacked "peaceful" settlers, a Friendly Indian at other times.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and one that is entirely due to your inability to understand a simple concept. Words come into being, and then their meaning changes over time. The origin of the word is important, and an encyclopaedia should discuss it. It should also discuss the meaning. Your talk of "early usage" is inaccurate: if we have written records of Indians using the term to describe themselves without prejudice that greatly predate the evidence you supply for its possible use in a scalping context, then the scalping suggestion cannot be the origin.

The suggestion that the Smithsonian should be ignored, but people who say something with no support should be believed is, frankly, insane. A non-literate society does present challenges when establishing what happened in the past, but there are ways of dealing with it. Academic review of the many interactions with literate societies, in multiple languages, is a good start (and we have Goddard's journal article to cover this). An academic review of oral histories would also be useful. What is not useful is revisionist oral histories put forward without support.

Again, the Taylor ref you supply is incredibly weak, and your insistence that it is not is concerning. You present it as if it's a quote of something he said: there is no indication of that. This is precisely what I was talking about when I said we should evaluate sources, rather than hope that they say what we want them to. And, anyway, even if we assume he said it, where is the research that he undertook to come to that conclusion?

In closing, would you care to tell me what is POV about my most recent version that you reverted. Note that I specifically say that I have not reviewed the Evolving meaning subsection, but I think the Origins subsection is entirely fair and balanced. Compare with the rambling mess that was there before. Bromley86 (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I am waiting for third party participation, however that may be stimulated. I have no interest in further discussion with someone who, from my point of view as a social scientist, insists that their understanding of an issue is the only accurate one, and includes personal issues in the discussion. There may be underlying theoretical differences regarding language that is also preventing communications on this topic. As someone who understand language usage in terms of particular perspective on evolutionary and cognitive psychology, I can recognize when someone does not share this perspective, but I don't know how to bridge the gap in this case.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

PS. I reverted the last edits because, as I explained, the NPOV tag puts editing of the article on hold until there is some resolution. Perhaps this is not in the guidelines, but should be, since what is the point of submitting a dispute to arbitration if changes are still being made unilaterally?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My draft of a revised article is complete: User:WriterArtistDC/scratch --WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The draft is now a table with the current and proposed versions; and is very much a work in progress.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

what is the exact dispute here? Elinruby (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well nobody answered my question -- though I probably don't have the time this will probably take. But here are some thoughts from a skim of the discussion. Perhaps they will be useful. Or not. As you like. I need a break from my current wiki concerns so I'll spend a few minutes typing here about some things I thought I saw in the discussion. If I am wrong then perhaps explaining it to me will advance the discussion a little anyway. I've been wrong before and promise not to take it personally. I know just enough about this to know I don't know nothing.

• Is redskin an racial term - Yes by definition, since it refers to a racial characteristic,
• Is it a racist term - Always? Not sure. Ask a native american. It took a column by Courtland Milloy for me to understand why why white people should not say "nigger"
• But native americans have used the word - If you say so. Is/was English their first language? Do you understand all of the cultural nuances? Are you sure?
• but it must not be that bad if native americans say it Are you native American and are you talking to Native Americans?
• Is the fact that racism and genocide took place in the past objectively true? Yes
• Is quoting someone's past statements ok? yes if they are notable and are backed with reliable rources
• Is the Smithsonian a reliable source? Usually and would probably be accepted as such on most topics by our dispute resolution process
• Is our dispute resolution process perfect? No. it is in fact rather arbitrary. But at least it involves discussion
• Is the Smithsonian a reliable source on native americans? Depends who you ask and what the question is
• If horrible stuff happened we don't have to talk about it, right? Was the horrible stuff notable?
• Is 'redskin' derived from flayed native american skins? Don't know. Several Native Americans have told me this
• 'So is it? Don't know
• What about that chief, he called himself a redskin Was he being sarcastic? Was this just the white man's word for him as far as he knew? Was he surrendering after Sand Creek? Context matters
• In history articles do we include the doings of racists and murderers? yes we do
• Do we quote their racists rationalizations with approval? Not if people stop to think about it. Right?

'*Is this Wikipedia policy? I don't know, though I am pretty sure Wikipedia tries not to be racist

• But it matters because.... Yes? Go on... Context matters. Please explain. Elinruby (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Since this noticeboard is on my watch list, don't know why I missed the June 9 posting. What is the dispute? With regard to NPOV, the issue is the degree to which an editor can use their personal judgement to select and summarize what is contained in reliable sources. There is no argument that we apply guidelines on what is a reliable source, and this also depends upon the topic of the article. Redskin (slang) is a cultural/social topic about the origins and meanings of a term that also has become part of a public controversy. It is therefore important to present all points of view in the controversy while maintaining the primacy of published sources from those with academic standing in the relevant fields of history, linguistics, anthropology, and sociology.

I see Bromley86 as having overstepped any reasonable application of NPOV guidelines by reducing or deleting content summarizing the reliable sources authored by Native American scholars Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz (PhD in History, UCLA) and Michael Taylor (PhD, Anthropology). Instead, there is reliance on one RS from a PhD linguist, Ives Goddard. It is my position that neutrality demands that the opinion of each scholar be summarized without bias, editorializing, or original research. Individual scholars do not refute the work of others in a single article; this is only done when secondary sources state that there is academic consensus, which does not exist for this topic. If a well-respected historian states that "redskin" was used by some white settlers as a reference to dead Indians, there is no contradiction in also stating that another academic draws a different conclusion from the meager published documents of the same era which were translations of translations by individuals of "no great learning".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Political views of Donald Trump

For reasons that I do not fully understand, there is an ongoing discussion about a perceived bias in this article. Is there anything that can be done to make the article more "neutral?" Jarble (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Without knowing what it is that is the problem it is hard to see how we can improve it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I see a number of minor sections where, in the absence of Trump or an official aide making a statement towards that issue, the article uses a commentator's opinion about how Trump stands on the issue. And more often than not, as that commentator is being critical of Trump, it makes it negative-sounding. I recognize that the various "Political positions of (President)" have a standard format and required list of H2 topics, and if Trump had not said anything towards those, the section should at least mention "Trump has not indicated his position on X". However, on these minor topics, having these can be a problem. For example, the "Disable People" section does state Trump hasn't made a stance, but then includes a negative element of him not yet responding to a certain group's request. I'm sure there's a LOT of groups and issues Trump hasn't addressed yet, so it's unnecessary to include that at this point. Or take the "Education / Presidency" section. It's taking his Education secretary nomination and trying to identify that as a political position even though Trump hasn't said anything about it, and the text only describes the nomination as controversial, which says nothing about Trump's policy. Lots of small little things that allow for the tiniest bit of Trump criticism coatracking whenever possible. There are places for this, but should be in clear, called out "criticism" sections or articles, rather than mingling among stated positions by Trump himself. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Surely if her refuses to say what his position is (even by just not responding to a direct question) that is noteworthy? I fail to see how this is a NPOV issue. I am less sure about the education section, I would have thought that an appointment does indicate a policy choice by Donny. By can see how it could be re-worded.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Lack of a stance is only noteworthy if someone (out side of Wikipedia) has actually noted it. If no one has noted it, then it is Original Research for Wikipedia to mention it. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, But in the areas raised here I am not seeing that. It has been noticed (and commented on) that he has no stance.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Where you can source that he has not stated a stance, that's fine. But that's all you then can really say. Any added material that is others suggesting or commenting on what his stance might be really isn't appropriate at that point, as while they can be worded neutrally, it begs the question if he refuses to take a stance or not. We shouldn't be letting other sources try to guess what Trump's unstated stances are on the various policies at least in this article. It is fair in articles or sections about criticism towards Trump to use RSes that are critical of Trump not yet taking a stance, but that's not appropriate in this specific article. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, in cases where Trump has not taken a stance, but other's are interpreting that lack of stance as meaning something, that interpretation is an opinion... and must clearly be phrased as being such (ie clearly attributed) in the article. On top of that, we we must be careful not to give opinions UNDUE weight. Being clear on who holds an opinion is very important to determining whether the opinion should be mentioned, and (if so) how it is mentioned. Not easy, but vital to neutrality. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the problem is I am seeing this in the areas raised. So are there any areas where we do properly attribute claims that he has not said anything?Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

In the case of the Disabled people, what makes that questionnaire more important than likely the hundreds of others his office has gotten from other concerned groups? Mentioning his lack of reply makes it a weak attack on him by appearing to say his doesn't care about disabled people. It's fine that we can source "He has not yet stated an opinion on disabled Americans.", but we shouldn't try to fill in the gaps with things that are not his own words. In terms of the appointment, it is more that we have no idea what the nominee's stance is from the written text, nor why Trump nominated her (which would likely indicate some of his positions too). I'm doing just a quick scan of the DeVos nomination articles, and there's very little in discussing her nomination that includes Trump's reasoning. I do see a lot describing what DeVos likely supports in terms of educational reform, but it would be OR to assume that that is also Trump's view (it has a highly likely chance of being as such, though). Instead, right now, it describes how the pick was controversial, which alluded more to how negative the Trump adminstration is broadly seen, which doesn't need to repeated in every possible place.

Basically it is at the end of the day that where Trump hasn't said anything specific about a policy area, filling those gaps with anything else has the potential to be a coatrack. It is better to say nothing in those cases. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Citing anti-Muslim activist's ... "questionable" reaction to anti-Muslim violence?

[11]

The section is garbage at the moment and needs expansion to include the statements by the Muslim Council of Britain and so on, but I'm torn on whether Robinson's remark should simply be blanked outright, or nuanced to point out that he experienced criticism for the offending remarks (which is what the source says).

I posted as much on the talk page some time ago but have not received much traction, as people seem to be more interested in whether ISIS's view is worth noting.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I think three is a weight issue here, for all his mouth Mr Robinson is (in reality) a nobody. Why are his views worthy of note?Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Hate-speech and bigotry isn't really WP:DUE. See WP:CRIT DN (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I (to a degree) disagree (thought not in this case) hate speech is not the issue...who says it is. I*f this had been spouted by (say) Teresa May we would have to repeat it. But Mr Robison is just another street thug who has got a bit of publicity.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, since I proposed removing it, two other editors on an impartial forum agreed, and no one on the article talk page explicitly disagreed, I've gone ahead and removed it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Not cool - you didn't discuss this on the article talk-page. You mentioned this in passing on an unrelated comment (on lede reversion) - which I think was corrected anyway - which is why nobody was discussing there. Mr. Robinson's comments (and subsequent interviews) received SIGCOV. We should give coverage to all sides of the conflict. Just as we quote ISIS outlets justifying ISIS attacks - we should quote UK political elements of note (such as Mr. Robinson) who appear to be possibly justifying the attack. You could re-work how this is covered - there was significant subsequent criticism of Robinson and he's made some more statements. This was Front-Page news the few days after the attack. There are obviously (as can be seen for instance in Wikipedia's trolls vandalizing the page! And of course more established ways of seeing support) - some people (maybe a very small minority) who are justifying the attack - and this is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

If this has not been discussed on the article talk page why was it brought here?Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

H's phone here. iPad's out of battery. As I outlined above, I had mentioned it on the talk page but had been essentially ignored. I'm sure the reason was the length of my post, but that's irrelevant. I was considering removing it, but I was reluctant to blank ”sourced content” from an article in a controversial topic area without first getting the go-ahead from someone. Slatersteven and DN appeared to be taking an even harder line than me, so I fired ahead. As for "not cool": technically speaking there is no requirement to get prior consensus on the talk page or anywhere else for an edit like that, and I was if anything being excessively careful by seeking some kind of input prior to making the edit. 182.251.188.235 (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I can see why it was missed, and it should have had a separate section (after all it was not in the lead, what everyone seemed to be talking about).Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As this was discussed here, notifying here of RfC opened on this topic (following discussion at talk page) at: Talk:2017 Finsbury Park attack#RfC inclusion of Tommy Robinson's comments.Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)