Talk:Paradox of tolerance

Introductory Wording
The tolerance paradox arises from a problem that a tolerant person might be antagonistic toward intolerance, hence intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance. Should be worded like this: The tolerance paradox arises when a tolerant person holds antagonistic views towards intolerance, and hence is intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance. hence: as a consequence; for this reason. I didn't want to say "is a problem that arises" as that would not be from a NPOV.

Homophily vs Intolerance
The current text of the example doesn't make sense to me.

The relation between homophily (a preference for interacting with those with similar traits) and intolerance is manifested when a tolerant person is faced with the dilemma of choosing between establishing a positive relationship with a tolerant individual of a dissimilar group, or establishing a positive relationship with an intolerant group member. In the first case, the intolerant in-group member disapproves the established link with an other-group individual, leading necessarily to a negative relationship with his tolerant equal; while in the second case, the negative relationship toward the other-group individual is endorsed by the intolerant in-group member and promotes a positive relationship between them.

Which is the "first case" and which "second case"? The example as I read it effectively says: "A tolerant person trying to establishing a positive relationship with a tolerant individual of a dissimilar group, the intolerant in-group member disapproves the established link with an other-group individual, leading necessarily to a negative relationship with his tolerant equal." This doesn't make sense - the groups dissimilar but both individuals are tolerant, where does the "intolerant in-group member" come from?

-- Isogolem 20:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BitwiseMan (talk • contribs)


 * Agreed. I have rewritten this section, hopefully with better clarity. Ddevault (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Unverified Twitter User As Source`
My edit to remove a poorly sourced reference was reverted, with the user challenging my edit citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

The reference I removed is from an unverified social media account on Twitter and does not appear to be citing any published sources and is acting as a primary source. I believe the use of an unverified tweet violates the following standards:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Self-published sources Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[g] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.[2] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Original research The no original research policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:

All material in Wikipedia articles '''must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.'''

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

User-generated content

Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites.

Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are Ancestry.com, Discogs, Facebook, Famous Birthdays, Fandom, Find a Grave, Goodreads, IMDb, Instagram, Know Your Meme, ODMP, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Tumblr, TV Tropes, Twitter, WhoSampled, and Wikip

If the user is quoting a published, reliable source, the citation should be updated to reference that source. Happy to discuss further, but I strongly challenge the validity of reversion under the "Assume good faith" rule. TrussedTurkey (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Otuọcha I will not immediately revert and start an edit war, but I would appreciate more clarification on why my edit was reverted. TrussedTurkey (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @TrussedTurkey, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions. Well, as a new user, there should be every chance of editing focus using WP: GNG. However, here we have three types of sources which are primary, secondary and tertiary. The Twitter source you removed was reverted because there is a rule on self published source per WP: EXPERTSPS which states;
 * "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Here, the Twitter account was quite trafficked enough that it belongs to an expert on the subject of the article that is non-living and as thus, considered reliable (although it is better to cite web since some of the Twitter/ Socials that belongs to subject matter experts are unverified). I hope you have gotten the reason. All the best and Cheers!  Otuọcha   (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)