Talk:Michael L. Weinstein

NPOV discussion
The article reads more like a very activist pro-Weinstein biography than an NPOV thing. Someone should clean it up or put an NPOV tag on it. For the record I served for 10.9 years & I'm a slacktivist fan of the MRFF, but this is not the way to promote us, or him.Pär Larsson (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried for NPOV. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone removed sourced criticism and added comments that dismissed the critics' concerns. It appears that attempts to present both sides are vandalized by pro-Weinstein activists who want a hagiography rather than an objective account. One of those was a Maximusveritas. He or she should bring his or her concerns here before altering the entry.RickW7x2 (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You should review Assume good faith and be careful about casting aspersions on other editors. As I noted in my edit summary, I removed the elements that were simply quotes from Weinstein like the Colorado Springs Independent quote.  You cite no reliable sources (and there was none that I could find) to show that he was criticized for these statements, so you have not shown that they are notable for inclusion. The only source you have for criticism to the subsequent statements are blog posts from a single person at jewsingreen.com, which in no way qualifies as a reliable source. Please review the guidelines I linked to before you respond because they make it clear that.  - Maximusveritas (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The site Jews in Green does not consist of a single person so to say they were posts from a single person is disingenuous. The interview was conducted by a single person as interviews normally are.  You also changed a section in such a way as to disparage the critics and create bias in the article.  Perhaps you should review Point_of_view and understand that articles are to take a neutral tone and are to present both sides.  After you altered the section this was clearly lacking.  As noted as far back in 2011, I was not the first nor the only one to notice that the article was one-sided. For this reason the article had been flagged for violating the neutral POV policy.  The interviews conducted by Jews in Green were not biased against Mr. Weinstein and allowed him to speak freely.  Also included was a cite from a Foreign Policy article that you did not challenge.  All of the articles cited were fair and there is no reason to consider them unreliable.  The Wiki policy uses the word "generally" when referring to the reliability of news organizations, not "all."  Care must be taken to use reliable articles and that was done in this case.  Therefore there was no reason for you to remove elements.  It would have been better to bring it up in the talk section for discussion before taking it upon yourself remove and reword and bring bias back to an article that sorely needed fairness and a neutral POV.  Consideration must be taken to the amount of research that goes in to providing accuracy and fairness into an article and this was not done.  If there was vandalism then removing those elements without discussion would be justified.  That was not the case here.  If you disagree this is the place to discuss edits.RickW7x2 (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If there was an active discussion about it going on, I would have joined in, but the only comments here were from 2012, so I decided to be bold and make the edits I did. I don't have a problem with the change you made to the first sentence.  But you still haven't explained how simply quoting Weinstein constitutes criticism.  The Jews in Green interview and the Foreign Policy article can be used as sources, but they do not contain any criticism of Weinstein's statements, which is what you need to show that these quotes generated controversy.  Just because feel that the article doesn't have enough criticism of Weinstein, doesn't mean you can add in criticism that isn't sourced from reliable sources or just throw in quotes that you think are controversial, but no reliable sources criticize him for. - Maximusveritas (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Now we can have a discussion. The quotes serve as examples to the criticisms that he has a history of making extreme statements of an anti-Evangelical Christian and/or anti-Fundamentalist Christian nature. When providing critical statements it is also important to provide examples. Would you agree or disagree with that? Second is the matter of reliable sources. Since what is cited is material from interviews and the citation is from the primary source, and the content of the interview (or interviews) is consistent with what Weinstein has said elsewhere, so for this case there should be no doubt as to its reliability. Reliability has to be done on a case by case basis (so similar issues discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard). Third, in regard to being bold: "All editors are encouraged to be bold, but there are several things that a user can do to ensure that major edits are performed smoothly. Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page). Since this was a major edit on a section that was just added and required some research and work to go into it, it would have been helpful to initiate a discussion on the perceived problem before acting. The fact that there was POV posting should have served as an alert that an alteration to this section could seriously affect the article's neutrality.RickW7x2 (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It does make sense to have examples that he has generated controversy/criticism, but those examples have to have sources demonstrating that said quotes generated controversy/criticism. Otherwise, it is Original research.  As far as the Talk Page thing, when it comes to Biographies of living persons, "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.  For this reason, I believe the article should go back to my version while awaiting consensus from other editors if you are still in disagreement.  - Maximusveritas (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The interview includes and is the material that Weinstein made the controversial statements. I think I made clear that they are reliable so at this point there should be no debate about that.  In this case they are neither unsourced nor poorly sourced so it is not clear why you are bringing this up as an issue.  As stated before when you altered and deleted what I wrote you changed the POV  from one of neutral to one that takes sides.  There should be no doubt that his statements have generated controversy and to leave that out does a disservice.  The said examples provided do demonstrate that the quotes provided controversy/criticism which is why they were placed next to the secondary source quotes.  For this reason they should not go back to your version.  If anything the criticism and controversy section should be expanded rather than reduced considering that many news stories currently on him.  If you wish to add that rather than subtract that would be helping to maintain balance.RickW7x2 (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If there's no actual reliable source for criticism or controversy of what he said, then it doesn't belong in a "criticism" or "controversy" section. You might think that what he said should be controversial or criticized, but we as editors cannot make that judgment. There must be a reliable source which makes the critique. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a reliable source.RickW7x2 (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion
This entry would be much improved if someone used all the news articles cited as evidence of Weinstein's press coverage to add material to the body of the entry. And did so while maintaining a distinction between what is suitable in a bio and what belongs in the entry for his organization. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Copy-editing
While I consider the subject of this article to be a whiny little (expletive deleted), even he deserves a well-written article, and this is not one. I suspect it has become more even-handed since earlier complaints about NPOV violation, but there are sentence fragments everywhere. I'll check back later (maybe tomorrow); if no one has cleaned it up by then, I will do so myself. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Michael L. Weinstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322055639/http://www.afa.net/Radio/show.aspx?id=2147490466&tab=blog&blogpost=2147489388 to http://www.afa.net/Radio/show.aspx?id=2147490466&tab=blog&blogpost=2147489388
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826114317/http://special.defensenews.com/people/2012/short-list.php?pn=10 to http://special.defensenews.com/people/2012/short-list.php?pn=10
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507034612/http://www.foreignpolicy.com:80/articles/2010/05/25/mikey_weinsteins_crusade?page=0,1 to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/25/mikey_weinsteins_crusade?page=0,1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140930064741/http://gannettgovernmentmedia.com/products/ to http://gannettgovernmentmedia.com/products/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael L. Weinstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100824084845/http://www.alternet.org/belief/147511/meet_the_military_man_battling_dangerous_christian_extremism_in_the_military to http://www.alternet.org/belief/147511/meet_the_military_man_battling_dangerous_christian_extremism_in_the_military/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/25/mikey_weinsteins_crusade?page=0%2C1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center Blog
I have suggested that splcenter.org/hatewatch, which is used for this article among others, sould not be used. See WP:BLPN "Southern Poverty Center Blog". Please comment there not here. Peter Gulutzan (talk)
 * The suggestion was not accepted and the discussion is now archived. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger
I believe this article should be considered for merging with Military Religious Freedom Foundation. Weinstein's sole notability lies in his connection to the MRFF. Much of the article is directly related to the MRFF's actions and activities which do not belong in Weinstein's article just because his quotes are included commenting on his own foundation's actions.

I removed a lot of OR/POV text. I do not know if people involved with the MRFF are contributing to this article nor am I saying that is wrong, per se. Some of the article has/had a self-promoting, triumphalist tone and Wikipedia is not the site for a hagiography of Weinstein. There are plenty of other places online for those who wish to indulge in that, not this encyclopaedia. Quis separabit? 07:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger. I agree that much of the content here belongs on the MRFF article, but I see more than enough coverage of Weinstein to satisfy GNG. James (talk/contribs) 21:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)