Talk:CNN controversies/Archive 3

CNN and reddit
I think "Prominent Alt-Right users on social media subsequently accused CNN of blackmailing the user, using a hashtag, #CNNBlackmail, that was heavily pushed by Julian Assange, as well as various right-wing online activists and conspiracy theorists." should be changed to "CNN sparked outrage and was accused of blackmailing the user by media personalities and social media, with the hashtag, #CNNBlackmail, trending at #1 on twitter."

There are several problems with the lack of NPOV in the current version. It puts Undue emphasis on alleged alt-right users and Julian Assange, and portrays the criticism as coming only from right wing sources and conspiracy theorists. "Prominent Alt-Right users on social media". The BBC only lists one person it says is alt-right, Mike Cernovich, not several persons. "heavily pushed by Julian Assange". The BBC link does not use the NPOV language "heavily pushed". It says it was "propelled", i.e. pushed.

Much better then this current version is my version "CNN sparked outrage and was accused of blackmailing the user by media personalities and social media, with the hashtag, #CNNBlackmail, trending at #1 on twitter.

Fox News says they sparked "almost universal backlash". Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire writes that " the scandal [was] percolating up from the internet world".

Fox News lists the likes of conservative politician Ted Cruz, leftist Vox journalist German Lopez, Wikileaks, and Dana Loesch as critical. Slate writes that "CNN has been criticized by some journalists, even those from mainstream outlets, for that portion of the article."

What do you think? --2001:8003:4023:D900:55D4:B6FC:58B1:5C2C (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever the wording you end up agreeing on here, the sources you used were not good at all. There were already a lot of sources and no need for more. Nor was there any good reason for removing mention of Assange. Edit warring is not the way forward. Instead follow WP:BRD and immediately start a discussion, rather than insisting on your own version. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're asking to deprecate the BBC (a widely-respected news source) in favor of a shameless Trump apologist? The answer is no. Ben Shapiro wishes he had 1/100th the credibility of the BBC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources I used are fine sources, and I used information from them. Why do you say they are not good? On Julian Assange, I don't know why he is mentioned by name, but others, like Ted Cruz and German Lopez and Dana Loesch are not. I think all should be mentioned or none, to give a better perspective of the wide range of people critical. --2001:8003:4023:D900:D9D6:2F05:E5C4:5B9E (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether the source is the BBC or not, the BBC article uses plural and then only lists one person, which is not ok. Ben Shapiro is not a shameless apologist. You would know this if you watched his show, or even if you saw him on Bill Maher. It doesnt matter whether you like him or not (and you obviously don't), he is a prolific media personality, and what he says on this topic is relevant. --2001:8003:4023:D900:D9D6:2F05:E5C4:5B9E (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Being "prolific" doesn't make an outlet reliable. In Shapiro's case, it may lead to the opposite. Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines do not treat all sources as equal, and the Daily Wire doesn't have the positive "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" required for sources to be treated as reliable. Grayfell (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * where does it say in WP:RS that Ben Shapiro saying that "the scandal [was] percolating up from the internet world"." is not reliable? --1.152.107.237 (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t know what “percolating up from the internet world” means or why an encyclopedia would care or how this is a “scandal”. Frankly, none of this belongs in the article as this is an article about CNN controversies, not silly crap on Reddit, and I see no reliable sources that explain how this fits here. O3000 (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it is a CNN controversy. "CNN was facing almost universal backlash on Wednesday after running an article on the Reddit user who made an anti-CNN, wrestling-themed GIF tweeted by President Trump over the weekend – and seeming to imply the network would reveal the person’s identity if he reneged on an apology." --2001:8003:4023:D900:6CAC:DCB8:BB95:3E08 (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Sparked outrage" or "universal outrage" are not compatible with WP:TONE. Even among the "Trump Internet" (as Washington Post calls it), this mostly fizzled out fairly quickly, so we should not present this using hyperbolic language. The goal isn't to get more people angry, it's to explain what happened and why they got angry at the time. To over-sell this would misrepresent the sources on hand. Grayfell (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

So does every criticism of CNN made by Fox "News" and other unreliable sources automatically qualify as content here? Or is it because another unreliable, though notable, source, like Trump, tweeted it? How low do we go? By these standards, any flake and fringe source can create a fake "controversy" by criticizing CNN. I think not. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "CNN created controversy" then. Because that did happen. --2001:8003:4023:D900:6540:242C:7404:E927 (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you define “controversy” as someone, somewhere disagreeing; then everything is a controversy. O3000 (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * as you can read earlier in this thread, CNNblackmail was trending no. 1 on twitter, numerous public figures came out and critized CNN. That is a controversy. It can also be called a backlash, as seen with Variety and the Daily Caller. Newsweek even refer to it as an outrage, albeit an overblown one. --2001:8003:4023:D900:6540:242C:7404:E927 (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Commentary by Tucker Carlson is repeatedly being removed, with a claim that he is not reliable for facts. Putting aside the veracity of the claim, Carlson is not being used as a source for any facts, but for his own opinion and criticism of the network. Such opinion is no less notable than that of Assange, and arguably far more notable than the opinions of Indira Lakshmanan or Madison Malone Kircher, both of whom have their opinions posted, despite not being notable enough to warrant an article of their own. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The source for the Tucker Carlson piece appears to be a bit of transparent content aggregation from Real Clear Politics. Beyond this source, did any secondary sources actually cover Carlson's opinion on this issue? Nblund talk 15:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that you are making a different argument that the one used for removing the content (you are arguing WP:UNDUE, not WP:RS). But let's address that as well - As it so happens, yes, other secondary sources, such as Independent Journal Review covered Carlson's opinion. Conversely, did any secondary Source actually cover Kircher's opinion piece? Why should we apply a different standard to Carlson? Here come the Suns (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed: I'm raising a due weight issue. You didn't actually link to an article, you linked to the Wikipedia page for the IJR. Are you referencing this story? Because this is simply more content mill stuff.  Nblund talk 19:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Did any secondary Source actually cover Kircher's opinion piece? Why should we apply a different standard to Carlson? Here come the Suns (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but that would be an argument for removing Kirchner's opinion piece, not an argument in favor of including more undue material. Her take on the subject is at least somewhat less patently obvious. Nblund talk 20:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. If you (and others supporting the exclusion of Carlson's opinion on these grounds) support removing all opinion pieces not covered by secondary sources, I could certainly get behind that. But we can't use one standard for opinions from one side of the argument, and a different one for the opinions from the other side. Here come the Suns (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with removing Kircher's piece, but its not a hostage negotiation, and you're not going to get anywhere by treating it as one. Start a thread on Kircher, make a pitch, and gain consensus. Nblund talk 20:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good, I'm glad you agree with removing her section, That makes three of us now. For the sake of formality, I'll add a section below this to enable you to voice this sentiment there, too. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You have this precisely backwards; the onus for inclusion is on the person proposing the addition. If you believe this material should be in the article, it's incumbent on you to justify the addition and gain consensus for it. How does it improve the article to add another fact-free partisan opinion from a well-known Trump propagandist? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What do I have backwards? It is exactly what I am trying do to here- get consensus for this addition. I am justifying it on the basis that the rationale used for its removal WP:RS is not based on policy, and that similar opinion pieces, albeit from the other side, are present in the article and per WP:NPOV, articles should cover both sides of the argument. That would improve the article, and save it from being an anti-Trump propaganda piece. Here come the Suns (talk)
 * Your description of the article as an "anti-Trump propaganda piece" is not founded in reality, in my opinion, so I'm going to go ahead and Oppose the proposed addition on the grounds that it adds nothing which the article doesn't already contain. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is as based in reality as your descripions of opinions you don't like as partisan opinion from Trump propagandists. Have you read WP:NPOV? Here come the Suns (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not merely an opinion - I cited a reliable source with a noted expert on media issues (Erik Wemple) who specifically discussed why Carlson is accurately described as a Trump propagandist. Do you have a reliable source which describes this article as an "anti-Trump propaganda piece"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Have your read WP:NPOV? Specifically, this part: "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."? Here come the Suns (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I sure have. And in my opinion, the article already fairly and proportionately represents the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How does it cover Carlson's opinion, or opinions similar to his? Here come the Suns (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Prominent Alt-right users on social media subsequently accused CNN of blackmailing the user, using a hashtag, #CNNBlackmail, that was heavily pushed by Julian Assange, as well as various right-wing online activists and conspiracy theorists. We could add "commentators" after "online activists" and adequately cover Carlson. (The "conspiracy theorists" bit already includes Carlson, arguably. But we can go with "commentators" too.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The section is already far too long for a minor event covered mostly by Reddit users. And Tucker Carlson has been criticizing CNN since 2005. His opinion doesn't really add anything. O3000 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you also in favor of removing the Kircher's opinion piece on the grounds that the section is already far too long for a minor event covered mostly by Reddit users. and that her opinion doesn't really add anything? Here come the Suns (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * She specifically covers digital culture, which is more on point, and more reliable than the co-founder of The Daily Caller, which is one of the few sites deprecated by WP with a consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. But as I said, it should be substantially reduced, which could result in her removal. O3000 (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, why don't you remove her section, then, and we can move on. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. You now appear to be purely obstructive. WP is built upon consensus. You are not building a consensus. O3000 (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Kircher's piece
Per the above section, there's seems to be broad agreement that the Reddit section is already far too long for a minor event covered mostly by Reddit users, and that Kircher's opinion piece could be removed on the grounds that it wasn't covered by any secondary sources and doesn't really add anything. I will be removing it shortly. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what was said, and there is no consensus for removal of that one item. O3000 (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

CNN false reports
As you all know CNN is known for reporting gravelly false reports yet there isn't a lot of them mentioned in the article. I was wondering if I can add that CNN published an article saying that ...pressure is mounting on Maduro to step down, following elections in January in which voters chose opposition leader Juan Guaido over him for president. the next day they corrected what they say without an apology. The CNN thinks that there was an election in Venezuela where people voted for Guaido. Can we add this to the article. This has been reported by RT news and I believe it should be mentioned.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we don't all know that CNN is known for reporting gravelly (sic) false reports. As a matter of fact, CNN is a well-respected international news source.
 * Russia Today is a propaganda outlet and not a reliable source. This isn't a list of every time CNN published something that was wrong; it's an article about controversies involving CNN. Was there a controversy over this particular error and correction? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes! There were a lot of news about this --SharabSalam (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Never even heard of these sources. This is an encyclopedia. WP:RS O3000 (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The RT didn't lie about the mistake. I don't know why not a lot of news reported this.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I have added some content please recheck if it fits in the article. I was trying to propose it first but something went wrong in the talk page.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This might belong, but your addition was not balanced - it contains only administration denials (of course they’d deny it, it makes them look bad). NPOV requires more - OK, the administration says it’s false, but what do other independent sources say? Do they agree that it’s false, or do they reject the government denials? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , The CIA is an independent entity. It is not the Trump administration. The CIA is not going to side with Trump or the CNN. I have presented the CNN claim and the CIA denial in a balanced way. After the CIA denied the CNN report, the media started shaming the CNN.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * how doesn't have anything to do with exclusive reports? The CNN itself call it exclusive! and what are the grammatical errors. I am not a native speaker of English but that doesnt mean you remove sourced content!--SharabSalam (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I just noticed that the section is "Executives" not "Exclusive" lol. I am not totally aware of how this article is written. I just wanted to add that information. In any case, it is worth mentioning in the article.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You added the material under 'Executives'. That doesn't make sense because U.S. Covert source is not a type of executive. Grammatical errors: Verb tense agreement in the first sentence; "the CNN"; and "Stephanie Grisham arrested that the reports...". Also, this looks less like a controversy and more like the Trump administration (and Russia) disputing CNN reporting. That literally happens every day because Trump and his surrogates are habitual liars. Please help me understand how this fits into this article.- MrX 🖋 00:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , As I said I confused "Executives" with "Exclusives". I wasnt aware of how this article is written. Secondly this is not like the CNN vs Trump thing. The CIA itself has disputed the CNN report. The media has reported that the CIA disputed the CNN report. If this doesnt fit, I dont know what else fits in this article.-SharabSalam (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems very routine to me. I'm not in favor of including it, but perhaps you can convince other editors.- MrX 🖋 01:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm with User:MrX and User:NorthBySouthBaranof. Doug Weller  talk 08:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any "controversy" here worthy of inclusion in this article. WP:UNDUE. O3000 (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you talking for real?? The CIA slammed the CNN report calling it fake.
 * : Former CIA official Philip Mudd said he has doubts about CNN's report on the U.S. withdrawing a high-level covert source close to the Kremlin from Russia in 2017
 * : White House spokesman Hogan Gidley and the CIA challenged reports that appeared in The New York Times, CNN and elsewhere
 * And there are lots and lots of sources about this controversy. How is this not worth inclusion?
 * Doug Weller, NorthBySouthBaranof said it is worth mentioning except that he thinks I wrote it in an unbalanced way, which is not true. However, MrX said it is not worth inclusion. So you cant agree with both of them. Do you think it is worth inclusion, just to understand your position.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouthBaranof asked what independent sources say. Your links above include sources that we wouldn't use for this, eg the Washington Times and the Washington Examiner. Leaving us with Fox News and the AP - can you really not find any other reliable sources? WAPO? NYT? Even a CNN response? No one has yet agreed that this belongs in the article, and if this really was a serious controversy I'd expect a lot more sources, even international ones such as the Guardian. Doug Weller  talk 18:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , there are many sources, this source for example, says this Stories in both The New York Times and The Washington Post further obliterated the CNN narrative. According to the Times, it wasn’t Trump, but the heightened media scrutiny on Russia following the 2016 election that caused concern for the spy’s safety. "The Washington Post likewise reported that Trump “was not the reason for the decision to remove the CIA asset.” I dont have access to The Washington Post or NYT because of the paywall.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , and there is this : According to the Times, CIA officials "made the arduous decision in late 2016 to offer to extract the source from Russia" -- weeks before Trump even took office.. I totally think this is suitable in this article. I can't have access to NYT articles, even their op-eds are behind paywall. What I wrote in this article wasn't enough information about this controversy. In any case I think it fits in this articles.  pinging   and  to see if they have changed their mind.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No this does not change my view.- MrX 🖋 17:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

my edit was lost. The Times report actually said "The decision to extract the informant was driven “in part” because of concerns that Mr. Trump and his administration had mishandled delicate intelligence, CNN reported. But former intelligence officials said there was no public evidence that Mr. Trump directly endangered the source, and other current American officials insisted that media scrutiny of the agency’s sources alone was the impetus for the extraction.'" - not what your first mention of it suggested. As for the 2016 decision, nothing happened at that time. As the Times went on to say, "But the C.I.A. pressed again months later after more media inquiries." The Extraction was in 2017 when Trump was president. As for WAPO, I found several opinion pieces. This one says "There was an unsuccessful extraction offer in late 2016, followed by months of Trumpian turmoil and media activity, followed, in turn, by a successful extraction. It’s plausible that concerns about Trump fed into that second extraction offer, even if they couldn’t have been present for the initial one. It’s also plausible that concerns about media speculation alone drove the decision." It also says "These first drafts of history, however, will produce nothing definitive on this front. Remember: We’re talking here about the motivations of the intelligence bureaucracy. Even for transparent institutions, motivations are tricky things to suss out." The 2016 thing is a red herring at best, an attempt to deceive at worst. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In any case, the AP and Business Insider sources make it clear that this was a widely-reported thing that the Trump Administration disputed, not one specific to CNN, so I don't see how it could be covered as a CNN controversy specifically. When an administration disputes the reporting of the entire media landscape, it belongs on Presidency of Donald Trump or some related sub-page for controversies, not on controversy pages for every single outlet that the administration named as if it were a unique controversy for each of them. The only sources that specify CNN are unreliable or WP:BIASED ones, whereas higher-quality sources present this as the Trump administration disputing a widely-reported account (ie. as a Trump administration controversy.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Nick Sandmann settlement
Seems that CNN settled with Covington Catholic High student Nick Sandmann for an undisclosed amount, seems odd there isn't anything in this article covering that controversy. Thoughts?MaximusEditor (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone, or RealClearPolitics
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I think the IP is partially right here. We definitely shouldn't attribute that to RealClearPolitics; they specifically are just linking Rolling Stone - it's not their article, and it's not something they're saying, so that attribution is just incorrect. See the respective sources here (plainly the original article) and here (note the attribution to Rolling Stone up top and the "full article" link that just links to Rolling Stone.) I don't think it makes sense to cite Real Clear Politics at all here - they're not a secondary source for this one (since they provide no interpretation or analysis), so I can't see any reason why we'd cite them over Rolling Stone, or what benefit we'd gain by doing so. That said, I am not 100% sold on attributing it to Taibbi, either, since authors often don't write their headlines - it might make more sense to just attribute it to Rolling Stone alone, which was definitely the original publication source. But it does generally reflect the tone of the piece (eg. he definitely wrote That “when” was as transparent a media “fuck you” as we’ve seen in a presidential debate.) Also, we should probably cite the AP piece, which is a better source than both (although I think the Rolling Stone piece is worth at least mentioning.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OMG! Aquillion, thanks for pinging me. I intended to delete the whole section, and my edit summary applies to all of it. Here's the section:


 * I object to using CNN to criticize itself by calling a CNN article a "hit piece" in wikivoice and then using it as the citation. That's OR. Now if the wording was different and the citation placed in a different spot, we'd be okay. Let me see if I can fix that.
 * I also object to CounterPunch and Consortium News as sources. I'm not sure if we consider them RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I've tweaked it, but those sources are still there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Larry King "controversy"
An IP has been editwarring in a claim that there is a controversy about CNN and a Larry King episode 27 years ago. The sources are a competitor and a tweet. I've run into 1RR, so someone else must remove. Meanwhile, I again invite the IP to discuss. O3000 (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed it while under discussion here. Looks like it is related to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation and Joe Biden. I would like to see more or better sources for inclusion in this article. PackMecEng (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The tweet is from an NY Post reporter and had 12k likes. He has been generating a lot of attention about this controversy on Twitter. Any article from any other news source could be deemed a "competitor." What level of attention would be sufficient to meet the standard of "Controversy" for you two? Nothing I added to the page was factually incorrect. I don't understand why including more information on the page, with citations, is a bad thing. The reader can decide for themselves, I don't think you need to be the judge for them. OkurrWebbs (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Does this source, by virtue of not being Fox News, meet your standards? OkurrWebbs (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The NY Post is a tabloid with no consensus on reliability owned by the same owner of Fox. And, if he's a reporter, why a tweet instead of an article. Frankly, what's the controversy, and why hasn't it been mentioned here for 27 years? An addition must be WP:DUE, particularly if it involves living persons. O3000 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Twitter is not a reliable source for the time of day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The tweets simply substantiate that there is a controversy surrounding CNN's coverage of the issue. I have seen tweets cited in other wikipedia articles. The news articles from Fox, Newsweek, and Washington Examiner are primary sources for criticism of CNN's coverage and allegations of removing the episode. The Intercept is the primary source regarding Tara Reade's mother calling Larry King. We should be able to agree these news sources are not "tabloids" and are from varying political leanings. I cannot understand why O3000 and PacMecEng feel the only solution is to delete the entire section, unless their bias is to protect CNN's reputation on this issue. I believe I have addressed their concerns by including multiple sources and ensuring my language is plain and factual. OkurrWebbs (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * A controversy for Biden, not CNN. This truly is the advent of Silly Season. ValarianB (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I have made several attempts to improve this article by adding a section related to CNN's coverage of the Tara Reade allegations. Rather than considering to Revert only when necessary (my improvement being in good faith, attempting to add more factual information to the article), you have all chosen to revert (delete) my addition immediately instead of improving/editing it. The concerns you have stated (needs more/better sources, tempered language) could have been handled by you or other editors. I cannot help but feel that you are giving in to your personal biases by deleting the section in its entirety, rather than attempting to improve my contributions where you see deficiencies. Everything included in my additions is TRUE and has MULTIPLE citations, even if you don't like the politics surrounding the issue.OkurrWebbs (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is under 1RR (Limit of one revert in 24 hours) as described at the top of this page, on your talk page and at WP:AN3 as your were informed. It's a wonder you haven't been blocked. You must gain WP:consensus for your addition, and you rather obviously have failed at this. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, from the article you just sent on Consensus: "Substantive, informative edit summaries indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work." Instead, you offered short, condescending remarks that there was "no evidence" supporting what I shared, despite my citations. Also on Consensus: "Be bold, but not rash. In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the page, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute. Use clear edit summaries that explain the purpose of the edit. If the edit is reverted, try making a compromise edit that addresses the other editors' concerns." I did just that, I addressed your concerns by adding citations. You escalated to editwarring by continuing to revert my changes rather than improve/edit them. OkurrWebbs (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You violated 1RR (Limit of one revert in 24 hours) three times. I could have taken this to admin enforcement noticeboard for serious infractions. Instead, I took it to edit warring noticeboard where sanctions are minor. So no, in no way could you say that I escalated. Also, multiple people reverted you and you failed to gain consensus. Now, instead of even trying to gain consensus, you are on attack. You should read the information that has been posted to your talk page. We were all new once. But, you have jumped into the deep end of the pool (a controversial article) with no experience. O3000 (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)