User talk:Nanite/Labels essay

American bias
In this essay you write:

Please correct me if I am wrong but this looks like an American writing the paragraph. In Britain most of the press tends to support a conservative POV with only one national paper (the Guardian) supporting the Liberal Party, and one tabloid consistently supporting the Labour party (the Mirror).

What is much more prevalent in both counties is nationalism. So when foreign or (less often domestic) actors attack the interests or people of either state, the perpetrators are usually described in one way or another as an enemy and subjective labels are used, either as a short hand or as propaganda. An example I like to use is that of the IRA. There is a core of support in the United States for a united Ireland, and during most recent Troubles the sections of the American government and the American press preferred to shy away from calling members of the IRA terrorists, tending to use descriptive words such as "gunmen", "bombers" etc, or even the IRA's own labels such as "volunteers" and "active service unit". At the same time most of the British media with the notable exception of Reuters, called them terrorists.

Indeed there was criticism in the US media over Reuters refusal to describe the hijackers during 9/11 as terrorists. Suddenly a policy that seemed reasonable to most of the American media when it was about the IRA, was unreasonable when Americans were on the receiving end of what amounted to large bombs.

One of the more revealing American court cases over the IRA was Quinn v. Robinson. It is particularly interesting to read a 1986 judgment that includes consideration of the political offence exception, somehow I suspect that post 9/11 2001 an American court (like American public opinion as reflected in the media) would be far less likely to be sympathetic to the political offence exception. Can you imaging the uproar in all parts of the American media if a foreign government refused to extricate a person known to have beheaded an American citizen because of the political offence exception?

Nationalism is more prevalent and often less noticeable in a county's media than idealogical differences between left and right America is no exception. Most Americans (like citizens in many western countries) may be aware of political bias in their media, but are far less aware of the nationalistic bias of their media (with little or no serious analysis in the same media that it occurs).

--PBS (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That's quite interesting... Indeed across the pond the bias runs a bit differently, but bias there is. Hence why the RS WP:NEWSORG policy only says that news are reliable for statements of fact. Choice of language does not seem to make a fact.
 * By the way the remarks you made over at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view, about the overall Zeitgeist, are quite appropriate. I've been thinking a bit more about the "bad" types of labels, and one additional aspect (like your Mandela example over at the other page) is the aspect of temporality. It is entirely possible for a still-living person to transit in the future from "terrorist" to neutral, or from "white supremacist" or "liberal" or "conservative" to neutral. Perhaps it's just me, but there is a certain degree of finality to labelling someone as extreme-this or extreme-that.
 * For example I've been watching one label battle happening over at The Rebel Media (far-right vs. conservative vs. right-wing vs. whatever), I noticed that the current 'far right' label in media only started six months ago. In six months again, the label may have changed. To be accurate we should have to say "currently far right", much like we say Donald Trump is "currently President". But saying "currently far right" would take out all the punch that the news orgs intended when using it. When Mandela was in jail would we have written "currently a terrorist"? --Nanite (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (And yeah, the points about Hitler made in the essays Let the reader decide and Let the facts speak for themselves are great.) --Nanite (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your sentence "It is entirely possible ..." raises several issues. The person does not need to be alive for this to happen, there are plenty of examples of a person's rehabilitated or damnation years or even centuries after they die. Often this is to do with a change in the perception of the author and the reader rather than a change in any of the know facts. Let me give you an example. Some years ago I copied a number of primary sources onto Wikisource about the Storming of Drogheda—a very controversial incident in the career of Oliver Cromwell—(see s:Category:Storming of Drogheda) most of these are well known and cited in the better secondary sources. However one of them "Wood's account of the storming of Drogheda" has tended to be overlooked. It seems that the late Victorian scholars found it hard to believe (and so dismissed it as Royalist propaganda), but looking at it through the lenses of the collective experiences of the last 100 years, it does not read so much as propaganda as a report of someone suffering from post-traumatic-stress. As he had survived the sacking of Basing House he clearly was not one of the fanatical Puritans, but the last sentence (admitting stealing from a dying woman and throwing her away) is not something a propagandist would do.


 * The propagandists of the Civil War era were not that subtle. They did not have to be, because until the start of the Civil War the only thing most people had to read was the Bible and so they naively tended to believe what they read was gospel (pun intended). Just look at the primary sources on the Burning of Birmingham (1643) (in s:Category:Battle of Camp Hill). This is not sophisticated stuff. Many Parliamentarians thought Prince Rupert's dog (Boy) was a witch's familiar (hence its appearance in the cutting). It purports to show that not only was Rupert vicious a foreign mercenary, but his victories could only be the work of witchcraft, as he was fighting against the "Godly' protestants" cause.


 * Similarly it is not that Mandela's point of view changed all that much, but rather the perception of the western society and media that reflects it did between the time of his conviction in 1962 and his release in 1990 (the height to end of the cold war). -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting as well (that Wood's account of the storming of Drogheda made my stomach turn). Historical examples aside, do you have any generalised recommendations on the correct way to use labels? --Nanite (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that the current, policy and guidelines cover the subject sufficiently.
 * (1) The problem is that many people genuinely do not understand that their views are biased. In my experience this tends to be more of a problem with new editors, who have not had what they consider universal view challenged. Such editors can usually be persuaded by discussions on the talk page and linking the policy and guidelines (also the two brief essays you mention above); and showing them examples good examples such as the ones I mentioned before. Comparing and contrasting Al Quada with 9/11 are also educational, as they are examples where the latter is spoilt by the phrase "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". The current usage in Al Quada took a lot of persuasion see the talk page achieves of that article, and show how one sometimes has to go back several times (consensus can change) to get a result. However once done it tends to remain done as other editors see the advantage (but new editors will change the wording, but then the consensus to use biased wording will have to be show to have changed, so it is usually easy to revert to a unbiased version).
 * (2) The second example is the POV warrior who will not agree to follow the policy and guidelines. They are basically following the logic spelled out in Terrorism "Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach [a label] to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint". Such editors are a real problem, and one has to expect to take a long time to change any articles where a POV warriors are entrenched, third opinions and RfC may help, but the list of topic sanctions gives a idea of how prevalent this problem is. Many of them are fairly obvious and driven by politics (often nationalistic) or moral eg anything to do with the Balkans (no surprise there!) or the internal American obsession abortion, however because English is the lingua franca of the modern world there are others that most English speaking people do not know about the classic being Liancourt Rocks where in the past newspapers have asked asked their readers to join in move requests. I used to get involved with such articles eg Genocides in history (and many other such articles and lists where people tend to use a definition to add what they think fits it (EG list of massacres), but now days I tend not to because they are a time sink and I can add more value to Wikipedia in other more productive areas.
 * --PBS (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Labels based on morality and opinion
Morality is based on one's beliefs which comprise the principles that form one's behavior. While principles may be theoretically possible, in reality they may not hold true. Opinions are also based on one's beliefs; therefore, both morality and opinion are based on an individual's belief system. Statements based on morality and opinion are not statements of fact in the way we know facts as truth according to science. We know that some people are principled and opinionated while others are unprincipaled with an anything goes POV on life. Facts based on science are truth whereas opinions are subjective. Opinions are not like commonly used words in that they are accepted based strictly on the merits of ubiquity.

The above is part of the dilemma we face as WP editors, and it revolves around the question: at what point do we accept morality-based opinions as statements of fact that we can include in the lede in WP voice without inline text attribution? Some editors seem to think that if an opinion has been stated as fact in multiple RS that WP editors can justifiably conclude that what was stated is indeed a statement of fact. Really? If that's true, then we can add statements from the Bible or Q'ran as statements of fact in Wiki voice because those beliefs have been published by multiple RS sources. You might want to read Noah's Ark and Quran.

Let's look at factual information such as labeling a BLP a physicist. If the person has a verifiable degree in physics, it is an acceptable statement of fact, so we can say it in Wiki voice. Jane Doe is a physicist from yada yada yada. Without a degree, can a person still be called a physicist? What if there is substantial verifiable evidence based on science that demonstrates the person's actions qualify him/her as a physicist? At that point it can be stated in the lede with inline text attribution. Although Jane Doe never earned a degree in physics at an accredited university, she is widely considered a physicist because of her work in yada, yada, yada.

What if SPLC has labeled Jane Doe a white supremacist because she voted for Trump, lives in an all-white gated community, and donated to the Family Research Council? Can we say in the lede that Jane Doe is a white supremacist and physicist from....? WP:PAGs say we cannot label her a ws in Wiki voice as statement of fact BUT can we/should we include in the lede that others think she is because her behavior points to it? How is the latter different from the Salem witch trials except for the fact that instead of death by hanging, derogatory labels in Wiki voice may be considered character assasination because they may cause harm to a BLP? Our policies are quite clear about causing a person harm: BLP states, the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. As editors, we are responsible for exercising a higher degree of sensitivity when it comes to BLPs - and that includes everywhere on WP.

I realize how difficult it is to remain neutral when one's passion and morality are involved but WP is neither a soapbox nor the place to right great wrongs. WP:CIR is important when it comes to editing BLPs in a dispassionate and neutral tone. Morality, biases and preconceived notions are the product of learned behaviors, and when editing articles, we can add what we've read in RS; the latter of which we may choose subconsciously because they support our own beliefs and POV.

I've seen GF editors become targets of impassioned advocates who consider themselves authoritative judges of morality. Some are known to isolate and polarize GF editors, and have even managed to get them blocked by gaming the system. The end result is usually the creation and ongoing stewardship of borderline attack pages. I consider them teflon coated Coatrack articles. Sadly, GF editors are often the ones we lose as a result of being bullied, isolated and polarized by derogatory labels imposed on them by those who IAR, including but not limited to false accusations of white washing an article or personally knowing the BLP and sharing the same views, or possibly falling victim to the race equivalency argument when such topics are involved. Atsme 📞📧 18:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)