User talk:Dutch235

April 2022
Hello, I'm Adakiko. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Paleoconservatism seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The user who submitted the edit utilized partisan sourcing. I simply removed the edit and the partisan sourcing and associated material. How can an edit stand without neutral sourcing? Dutch235 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The Observer, part of The Guardian is considered by Wikipedia consensus to be a wp:reliable source as long as it is not a blog, which that article does not appear to be. See wp:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Adakiko (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * BTW: You should read the source: https://observer.com/2017/11/infowars-alex-jones-stole-content-from-kremlin-backed-russia-today/ It cites a number of sources for its information. Adakiko (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have read the article. Two things. Are stating that the Observer generally has no political slant? Second,where is the notation within the article by a recognized scholar or Conservative source that states Alex Jones is in fact a Paleoconservative? I Going by your response, the Blaze media network or similar could write a story that you are a racist and Wikipedia would accept the edit. Is this true? Dutch235 (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This belongs on the article's talk page. You should open a discussion on talk:Paleoconservatism. See help:talk pages and wp:talk page guidelines. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Three questions. Zero answer. I think I understand what is happening. Dutch235 (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything has bias. The source does not need to be a "recognized scholar" or "conservative source". Just needs to meet wp:reliable source. BTW, "conservative" isn't a proper name. No, per Wikipedia policy, talk:Paleoconservatism is where this discussion belongs. See wp:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. This is my reply here. Adakiko (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * One of the things that's so great about Wikipedia is that we're all volunteers here. There is no manager you get to complain to. You can pull yourself up by the bootstraps and learn more about the way things work here on your own initiative (e.g. what makes a source reliable? how do we decide?) –– and indeed, if you ask nicely, people will mostly be glad to help –– or you can spend your energy whining about people not taking your unserious questions seriously. The former will allow you to become a productive contributor to the project, while the latter will consign you to irrelevance. Your free choice! Generalrelative (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No where in the cited source is the term Paleoconservative cited. It is not accurate to title The Guardian as a source in this instance because of this. The citation does not fit the edit. That alone discredits the edit. Please read the article. Also, If an opinion from a "reliable source" is allowed to be a proof of fact, what is the point of Wikipedia? Just to forward opinions in the guise of a legitimate source? If there is no manager, then what are you doing by preventing an edit? Dutch235 (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)