Talk:Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression

Inquiry from Tjc clay
(Cross-posting] from User talk:DrFleischman:)

Hi. I've been tasked with updating and improving the Thomas Jefferson Center's page, on which you recently made several edits. I am admittedly inexperienced when it comes to editing pages, but your recent edits raised a couple of questions that I wanted to get your thoughts on before I dove in. First, you have called for a citation as to the Center's nonpartisan status. Why is this necessary, when a citation is not required for our nonprofit status or our stated mission? Second, can you please explain your removal of the Jefferson Muzzles content to a new page? I understand the need for secondary source coverage of the Muzzles, and can provide that information. I do not, however, understand why inclusion of a (properly cited) Muzzle section is inappropriate on the Center's main page. It was my intention to create a new section describing three of the Center's major projects, including the Muzzle Awards. The creation of this new page has left me very confused as to how I should proceed. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Tjc clay (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Clay, thanks for writing.
 * Regarding the "nonpartisan" label, this is about Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which requires proper verification for any content that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Describing an organization as "nonpartisan" is political and therefore inherently controversial. Lots of organizations struggle to market themselves as nonpartisan to gain credibility; some succeed and some don't. This is totally different from the "nonprofit" label, which is noncontroversial and easily verified online. However if there is some question about TJC's nonprofit status then it should be cited as well. When in doubt, cite. It will always bolster the credibility of the article.
 * Regarding the Muzzle Awards, this is also about verifiability, and specifically about the use of WP:ABOUTSELF sources (sources affiliated with the article's subject), which may not be used in a promotional or otherwise self-serving manner, as they were here. As a general matter, if content can't be supported by reliable, independent, secondary sources, then that is a good indication that it's not sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. If you can provide such sourcing then by all means, propose adding the material back in; otherwise, you may want to inform those who have "tasked" you that your job is at odds with Wikipedia policy.
 * --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for getting back to me so quickly, and for the links you provided.
 * I will update my user page to include disclosure of my position with the Center and avoid editing the Center's page directly.
 * When/if I propose edits to our page here on Talk:TJC, is there any way to ensure that those proposals will be seen by other editors? Would it be okay for me to seek your input on those proposed edits directly?
 * Tjc clay (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your cooperation. Yes, you may seek my input directly. The best way to do this would be to post your proposals on this page and to ping me using the u template (i.e. " "). However I can't guarantee I'll respond quickly, and my participation on Wikipedia varies from day to day and from month to month, so the best way to get help is to use the Request edit template. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)