Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 63

Can I please have some help at Shooting of James Boyd?
This case is also at the OR noticeboard, but no outside editors have commented yet and the other editor keeps editing in the OR. This is really becoming more a matter of behavior than lack of knowledge of WP policy, as I originally assumed. I have already spent way more time on this than I had and today I gotta be elsewhere today so I'll have to do the fleshing out and diffs later, and I guess I am supposed to close the other discussion (?) However I'll leave it up while I am gone, for reference, for now, as the two issues described there are among the of several problems faced by the article. The sort of very angry line-by-line refutation of the smallest details you see there is another. Almost every attempt to discuss has gone off into the weeds. A few of the current concerns, which may require attention today:


 * repeated reinsertion of, essentially, an OR refutation of the prosecutor's opening statement. These are studies the editor went out and found on his own.
 * possible outing of another editor, @Activist, and stark refusal to delete the material from his page, because, he says, he wants to prove how ignorant that editor is.
 * Needless to say we don't see that editor on the page any more very much at all.
 * he likes the word ignorant and uses it a lot
 * editor has said he knows he is right and primary sources are acceptable if used carefully. "Careful use of primary sources" in this case is, per that editor, a courtroom exhibit briefly seen on a YouTube video. I am inclined to believe the video is genuine and there is such an exhibit but the sources do not use terminology he wants in the article; his contention is that the accuracy of the terminology is obvious from the exhibit.
 * editor has said he doesn't care what I or any other editor say about this.
 * there was some sort of rant about BS yesterday, which, as best I can determine, refers to a prosecution witness' testimony.
 * editor has said he has "inside sources"
 * there are COI discussions open re the city of Albuquerque
 * editor makes wild and unfounded accusations
 * editor makes remarks about other editors. All the time, non-stop, and assumes bad faith.
 * editor, when asked directly if he has a contract with the city of albuquerque, editor replies that he is not a city employee Elinruby (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Elinruby wrote, This case is also at the OR noticeboard, but no outside editors have commented yet and the other editor keeps editing in the OR. This is really becoming more a matter of behavior than lack of knowledge of WP policy, as I originally assumed.


 * I am the other editor involved in this situation. I disagree that I have a lack of knowledge of WP policy.  This dispute is a mostly a result of a difference of opinion about how to properly use primary sources.


 * Elinruby wrote, The sort of very angry line-by-line refutation of the smallest details you see there is another. Almost every attempt to discuss has gone off into the weeds.


 * I agree. Most of our discussions have gone off into the weeds. But there is a good reason for this.  Elinruby has a highly biased POV, and does not appear to be emotionally stable.  Repeatedly I've been called a name.  Nothing too bad, but when I point it out, Elinruby minimizes it, refusing to retract it or apologize for it.  There have even been claims that I've done the same thing, called other editors names.  This is simply not true.  Elinruby claims that I've called her a liar, and such a claim is absurd.  At worst I've 'awarded' Elinruby  "Pinocchios,"  a polite way to say that someone is wrong, either factually, based on a false premise or emotion, or is simply being careless.  If requested, I can demonstrate several instances of this.


 * Elinruby wrote, A few of the current concerns, which may require attention today:


 * repeated reinsertion of, essentially, an OR refutation of the prosecutor's opening statement. These are studies the editor went out and found on his own.


 * My insertions on this are about as far from OR as one gets. I've cited a very well respected, very well researched issue of a newsletter, published by the Force Science Institute.  I have no idea why Elinruby thinks that there's something inherently wrong about my finding this source on [my] own. I've known about it and used it for many years.


 * Elinruby wrote, possible outing of another editor, @Activist, and stark refusal to delete the material from his page, because, he says, he wants to prove how ignorant that editor is.


 * The other editor wrote some replies to some of my questions on his own page. He said that when I and Elinruby had read it he planned to delete it.  I read it and copied it to my Talk page, telling the editor that I wanted to preserve it in the event he tried to change his answer to any questions that I might ask at a later time.  It's IMPOSSIBLE to out him because there is absolutely NOTHING OF A PERSONAL NATURE that would enable anyone to find him in his information.  Conveniently both that editor and Elinruby forget that ANYTHING that is posted on WP stays here forever.


 * Elinruby is unable to tell the difference between a comment made about something that's written, and a personal attack. That editor seems to think that when a written comment is attacked, the editor is personally attacked.  I've pointed this out several times, to no avail.  At least some of the disagreement is due to the fact that neither Elinruby, nor Activist has any education, training, or experience in law enforcement matters that are a large part of the incident under discussion.  I've been trained and worked in these matters for many years.  And so they make assumptions about what happened based on this inexperience and lack of knowledge.  Elinruby interprets this as being called ignorant.


 * Elinruby wrote, Needless to say we don't see that editor on the page any more very much at all.


 * I've invited him back. I've pinged him repeatedly.  He hasn't put in an appearance in quite some time.


 * Elinruby wrote, he likes the word ignorant and uses it a lot


 * I don't know what a lot means, it's quite vague. As are many of that editor's messages on the Talk page.  I've asked dozens of questions of Elinruby to try and clear up inconsistencies or when vague references that can't be followed are made, but Elinruby refuses to answer them.  At one point, after I'd asked about a dozen questions trying to clear up misunderstandings and vague references, and not even one of them had been answered, I asked why there hadn't been any answers to my questions.  Elinruby denied that I'd asked any questions!  And so I listed them one by one.  Even then, answers were not provide for many of them.  Since then, the number of unanswered questions has climbed to over 50 and they are just ignored, making communication difficult, if not impossible.


 * Elinruby wrote, editor has said he knows he is right and primary sources are acceptable if used carefully. "Careful use of primary sources" in this case is, per that editor, a courtroom exhibit briefly seen on a YouTube video. I am inclined to believe the video is genuine and there is such an exhibit but the sources do not use terminology he wants in the article; his contention is that the accuracy of the terminology is obvious from the exhibit.


 * This is old business. The point is moot because I've found and cited a secondary source that gives the information, but Elinruby will not let go of it.  At question is the description of a knife used by a suspect who was committing aggravated  assault with a deadly weapon against several police officers.  Many secondary sources state that the knife was a folding knife with a blade about 3 1/2" long.  The knife was a lock−back type and the blade of the knife was partially serrated, but none of the sources had written these last two descriptions in the news stories about the incident.  The knife however, is shown in a still photo on some video footage that comes from Court TV, a live TV camera in the courtroom during the criminal trial of two officers who were involved in the incident.  The knife is shown in a still photo against a scale, to show its length.


 * It's my contention that any  "educated person, without any specialized knowledge" could look at the photo of the knife and see that the blade is partially serrated. This does not take any interpretation, only observation.  This takes it out of the realm of Original Research, and makes it a BlueSky matter.  REPEATEDLY I've pointed this out to Elinruby and at least one other editor, but they've not replied to that comment.  Once Elinruby said that the average person would not recognize that the knife was a lock−back from looking at the photo and perhaps that's correct.  But the knife is described that way in one of the reputable secondary sources that I've cited.  Elinruby also disagreed that the average person would recognize that the knife was partially serrated.  But if you showed three knives to the average person and one of them was serrated, I have no doubt that they could pick out the serrated one from the other two.  This is common knowledge, it doesn’t take a knife "specialist" or "expert" to see that a knife has a serrated blade.  But Elinruby does not respond at all when I've pointed this out.  Instead, the entire argument about OR is restated, as if we had not discussed the matter repeatedly.


 * Elinruby wrote, editor has said he doesn't care what I or any other editor say about this.


 * I carefully considered the opinion of this editor when it was first proposed. I closely read the policy on Original Research, closely examining it.  I do not think that this matter requires interpretation.  It only requires observation.  I think this editor is wrong on this and  has added nothing new to the discussion, since it originally came up.


 * Elinruby wrote, there was some sort of rant about BS yesterday, which, as best I can determine, refers to a prosecution witness' testimony.


 * As with some of Elinruby's other references, I don't know what is being referred to here. This is typical of some of the comments that this editor makes.  When I ask for clarification so that we can discuss what is being referred to, I do not get a response, making progress towards a solution, impossible.


 * Elinruby wrote, editor has said he has "inside sources"


 * I do have some sources inside the law enforcement agency under discussion. But I have no idea why Elinruby brings this up.  I have not used any unattributable sources in the article, only to enlighten the other editors in the Talk section.


 * Elinruby wrote, there are COI discussions open re the city of Albuquerque


 * I thought that this had been settled. After I answered repeated questions, stating that I did not have any COIs about the Article under discussion, Elinruby responded that it was understood that I did not have any COIs.  To repeat, I am not, and have never been an employee of any entity under discussion in the Article.  That includes the City of Albuquerque, the Albuquerque Police Department, the attorneys involved in the case, and the police union.  Elinruby was under the impression that I had said that I had done some work for someone involved in the court case, but I've never said anything of the kind.


 * In our last exchange on this matter of COIs I wrote this, As it says, I am not, and never have been employed by anyone or any entity mentioned in this incident. NO, I was not involved in this case. I can't say this with any more clarity and if you don't get it this time, too bad – I DO NOT HAVE ANY COI'S HERE. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC) and Elinruby responded, ok then not an employee not a contractor not a witness. Got it. but that entry was not signed so there is no date and time for it. But it sure appears that it was clearly understood that I do not have any COIs in this matter.  But now it comes up again.  This is an oft repeated situation in editing this Article and dealing with Elinruby.  We discuss something, it appears to be settled, but then it's brought up again, as if the previous discussion had never occurred.


 * Elinruby wrote, editor makes wild and unfounded accusations


 * Such an allegation without supporting evidence is worse than worthless. It's character assassination of the lowest kind.  If Elinruby wants to be believed on this then those unfounded accusations should be presented so that I can address them.  Until that happens, I'll deny making any.


 * Elinruby wrote, editor makes remarks about other editors. All the time, non-stop, and assumes bad faith.


 * This is just about identical to the last accusation. I'll deny it until evidence of same is presented.  But I'll STRONGLY disagree with the bad faith accusation.  IN FACT, both Elinruby and Activist have accused ME of acting in bad faith, several times in both our discussions on the Talk Page and in editing the Article.  I've only made such a remark when it's been obvious.  As mentioned before Elinruby can't tell the difference between a remark made about an editor's writing and one made about the editor himself.  I've made many of the first and none of the second, except to reply to such a comment made about me.


 * Elinruby wrote, editor, when asked directly if he has a contract with the city of albuquerque, editor replies that he is not a city employee


 * This is an excellent example of this editor's redundancy and inability to understand simple statements. Just a few paragraphs above I quoted Elinruby as stating, ok then not an employee not a contractor not a witness. Got it.  But here it is again, as if it had never before been discussed.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking over their contributions, every edit in the last week has been utter nonsense: including poorly sourced and OR lurid details or longwinded explanations all meant to justify the actions of the police. -Darouet (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Everyone's a critic, but this is simply twaddle. I've placed several comments that were either neutral towards the police, or were against their interests.  When I started editing this page, there was nearly a complete lack of anything that supported the officers in the case.  It was a highly biased article, against the police.  I did nothing but provide balance, the NPOV that WP requires.  Here we have more accusations without any support for them.  My sources are reputable and properly cited.  There are no lurid details or longwinded explanations. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * pretty much. I am just sticking my head in the door and can't do the promised diffs just now, but I will follow up by morning. He does make some useful contributions now and then but the signal to noise ratio is very low, and generally you have to go through a few rounds of being called stupid before getting any substantive answer. I have only persisted thus far because I think the article is important. Albuquerque police have a LOT of issues and this is the only one that has been documented to any extent on wikipedia. So part of my discussion with Beanyandcecil has been "ok, I understand that that this is not the usual best-practices protocol for making contact with the mentally ill, but that is sort of the point."


 * James Boyd was minding his own business on a mountain with a knife in his pocket and wound up dead. The knife was legal and at worst Boyd was committing an infraction of a municipal ordinance. Death is not the desired outcome for this in my mind so how did this happen? There are a lot of sources, although there are also a lot of errors and contradictions. But, and this is according to New Mexico attorney-general Hector Balderas as reported in many many RS, APD filed criminal charges against the DA for "political reasons" after she filed criminal charges against these officers. I did not make that up. The other editor did not make that up. It is established fact widely reported in RS. There are very valid grounds for concern about retaliation, for example, whether Beanyandcecil believes he is endangering the other editor or not. If the other editor lives in a small enough town the information Beanyandcecil is trying to use to prove the other editor is stupid -- and why is he trying to prove the other editor is stupid anyway? ---might well be identifying, especially if the incident happened someplace in New Mexico like say Hatch for example. Gotta go, back later Elinruby (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC).


 * Elinruby wrote, pretty much. I am just sticking my head in the door and can't do the promised diffs just now, but I will follow up by morning. He does make some useful contributions now and then but the signal to noise ratio is very low, and generally you have to go through a few rounds of being called stupid before getting any substantive answer. [Emphasis by Beanyandcecil]


 * Here we have an excellent example of Elinruby's inability to accurately recount facts. I have NEVER called any editor stupid!  This is a deliberate attempt to deceive any outside editors who may be reading this.  It's reprehensible and disgusting!


 * Elinruby wrote, James Boyd was minding his own business on a mountain with a knife in his pocket and wound up dead. The knife was legal and at worst Boyd was committing an infraction of a municipal ordinance. Death is not the desired outcome for this in my mind so how did this happen?


 * I find it amazing that some people will summarize a situation like this in such a manner. Yes, Boyd was minding his own business on a mountain with a knife and wound up dead.  Conveniently Elinruby has omitted vital details that wound up with Boyd being shot and killed by the police.  Commensurate with his violation of camping (for over a month) in an area where no overnight camping was permitted, and subsequent to a call by a local resident complaining about him, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) dispatched two officers assigned to the area to deal with the situation.  When they approached Boyd, who was under a make−shift shelter constructed from a sheet of plastic he confronted them with a knife, threatening to kill them if they touched him, escalating the violation from one of a misdemeanor (illegal camping), to a felony, (aggravated assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer).  Naturally the officers called for backup.  Boyd was known to the officers who responded to the second call as a violent mental patient who had slashed someone with a box cutter, broken the nose of a APD officer, and who had spit jalapeno pepper into the eyes of a jailer.


 * It turned into a stand-off lasting about 3 1/2 hours, during which the police called in mental health professionals to deal with Boyd. Negotiations were unsuccessful at having him put down his knives and he continued to threaten to kill anyone who tried to take his knives or to take him into custody.  When it was clear that he was not going to comply with commands to put down the knives and darkness was fast approaching, they formulated a plan to use less lethal force to take him into custody.  That plan failed and two officer shot Boyd to save the life of a police K−9 handler who was in close proximity to Boyd who, at that moment was armed with two knives.  There was a trial that of the officers for open count murder (later reduced to second degree murder) that resulted in a hung jury, voting 9-3 for acquittal.  Just a little bit more than the killing of a harmless camper that Elinruby described.


 * Elinruby wrote, There are a lot of sources, although there are also a lot of errors and contradictions. But, and this is according to New Mexico attorney-general Hector Balderas as reported in many many RS, APD filed criminal charges against the DA for "political reasons" after she filed criminal charges against these officers. I did not make that up. The other editor did not make that up. It is established fact widely reported in RS.


 * No matter how many RSs repeat the statement that the APD filed charges against the DA for  "political reasons"  it's still nothing but an opinion, and one clearly driven by politics. I have no problem with adding that to the article, but it's not been done!  I have no idea why Elinruby brings it up at this late date.  But if so, then it's only reasonable to provide NPOV to counter the statement with one from another source, perhaps the police union, that the charges were appropriate and correct.  In fact, the entire DA's office was removed from the case, requiring the appointment of a special prosecutor, lending some credence to the opinion that there was an obvious COI in the DA's office.  But of course, you won't hear that side from Elinruby.


 * Elinruby wrote, There are very valid grounds for concern about retaliation, for example, whether Beanyandcecil believes he is endangering the other editor or not. If the other editor lives in a small enough town the information Beanyandcecil is trying to use to prove the other editor is stupid -- and why is he trying to prove the other editor is stupid anyway?


 * I'm sorry but this is so much nonsense. Activist provided the information himself.  There is nothing of a personal nature contained in the message.  And I've done no research to find any material of that nature at all.  As WP describes,  "Personal information can be anything that can be used to identify an individual, not limited to but including name, address, date of birth, marital status, contact information, ID issue and expiry date, financial records, credit information, medical history, where one travels, and intentions to acquire goods and services."     There is a vague description of an incident and some vague background information that Activist supplied.  WP states that if an editor has supplied personal information himself that it's not considered to be harassment.  This occurred on the 10th or 11th of this month.  Activist voice his complaints to me and I responded that by keeping his message to me, his responses to my questions that, per WP policy and rules, I had neither harassed him, nor was there information to "out him" in the material THAT HE HAD PROVIDED.  I thought the matter closed.  Activist basically 'took his ball and went home' refusing to take part in the editing of the article any longer or to respond to pings, but Elinruby continues to bring it up occasionally, as now.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


 * I have to run as well, so I'll be quick. I've been interacting with Activist on this site for years.  Unfortunately, he may have outed himself by posting to other sites under his real name and talking about the same topics with the same level of detail than he does here.  I'm going to be respectful and leave it at that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  00:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. Since Activist has apparently outed himself as shown by RadioKAOS, it appears that his concerns about me 'outing him' are just so much nonsense.  I have no personal information that would allow this, nor would I be interested in such a thing.  It appears that Activist, along with Elinruby, simply do not want me to provide a NPOV, and that this section started by Elinruby is nothing but another attempt to prevent that.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That may be so, and I think it is up to @Activist to pursue the attempted outing as an attempted outing if he chooses to do so. Nor do I know if is in New Mexico. But Beanyandcecil by the same token doesn't know that he is not, and is waving around a legalistic and cherry-picked citing of the policy in order to leave it up.


 * My primary point in bring this up however is the level of contentiousness shown by Beanyandcecil in posting the exchange to his talk page to somehow prove...something... and then refusing to remove it. "Activist wrote, 'There is no basis for posting personal information about myself that I took pains to clearly restrict solely to both of you.' *There was no 'personal information' about yourself in your message." If an editor feels his privacy is at risk who is BeanyandCecil to question that? Chilling effects doesn't begin to cover it; APD is known for killing people for crying out loud. *I* feel intimidated by this action and have removed some identifying details from my account because of it. But this is not the forum for that discussion and I would out myself and perhaps endanger other people if I explained why. Let's just say "Beanyandcecil has a contentious editing style" and leave it at that. It is also important to realize the context -- and yes I will provide a diff -- Beanyandcecil was saying since neither of us was an LEO who has used lethal force we should not edit the article, as we were doing, to reflect the trial. I disagree of course; police officers charged with homicide seems notable to me, regardless of whether I approve. Back shortly to flesh out the NPOV items, need food first tho. Elinruby (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is up to Activist if he wants to pursue the matter. But there is no, as Elinruby claims, an attempted outing.  ACTIVIST put the information up and there is NO PERSONAL INFORMATION, per WP definition, in it.  It makes no difference where he lives, it's impossible to determine his identity by what he wrote.


 * There is going to be, as Elinruby wrote, contentiousness in an article like this, particularly when one editor or more, allow themselves to become so emotionally invested that they lose sight of the fact that fairness and WP policy require a NPOV.


 * Any reasonable person may question the opinion of anyone here. That's the way that this works.  Activist may feel that his privacy is at risk, but in fact, it's not.  There is no personal information, as defined by WP or by any other standard for that matter, contained in Activist's message.  Identification of him is impossible from it.  AND both Activist and Elinruby seem to forget that contrary to Activist's wishes to delete the material, WP keeps it forever.  This is clearly written in the policy page on this.  Activist might think that he's being stalked by Bigfoot, that the moon is made of green cheese and that the Russians have tapped his phone.  But that does not affect reality.


 * It's unfortunate that Elinruby has such a degree of paranoia that those feelings could only be dealt with by remov[ing] some identifying details from [her] account ... But those details should never have been there in the first place.  WP makes this extremely clear.  Keeping such information from appearing on the Net is little more than common sense.  Elinruby's obsession is so severe that she fears that APD will kill her for daring to post on WP!?  Good grief, could there be any deeper emotional involvement?  Get a grip.


 * Perhaps I do have a contentious editing style. But unlike some, I manage to stay polite and professional, until the personal attacks become too egregious to bear, then I return like for like.  Contrary to Elinruby's statement, I've not called anyone names or committed any personal attacks, as she's done to me.  My comments have all been aimed at the comments of other editors, NOT at the editors themselves.


 * But I will have to award ten Pinocchios to Elinruby's claim that Beanyandcecil was saying since neither of us was an LEO who has used lethal force we should not edit the article, as we were doing, to reflect the trial. I've NEVER said this, or anything close to it.  I challenge Elinruby to bring that statement here to support that claim.  I have NEVER said that ANYONE should not edit the article ... to reflect the trial. This is a complete and utter fabrication.  But the converse is true.  Elinruby has, several times, told me that I should not insert material that provides NPOV.  I will be happy to bring those statements here, if requested.


 * And finally, Elinruby is challenged by simply keeping to facts and being accurate in editing. "Homicide" is the killing of a human being.  It's not a crime, but simply a finding of fact.  It's a general term.  NO ONE is charged with homicide as Elinruby has just claimed.  IN FACT, the two APD officers were charged with "open murder" meaning that they could be convicted or either first or second degree murder, depending on what the jury decided.  IN FACT the jury voted 9-3 for acquittal, and a mistrial was declared when they dead−locked.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I found that very hard to read and I actually mostly know what he is talking about. I am itching to slap a hatnote on that mess but I think someone else should do that if in fact it is appropriate.

One of the things I need help with is keeping my temper.

Another is trying to explain NPOV to, because he is sure not listening to me, and I have been working on this for more that a week full-time, and come on, that is ridiculous. He has said he doesn't care what I or anyone else thinks of his OR, because he is sure he is right. Perhaps he will listen to several of you. Whatever you do though, do not attempt to explain anything inline as he will inline-answer your explanation to tell you how wrong you are and ping you for each inline alleged refutation.

Let's attempt a different format. I have promised diffs on the issues in the weeds and am late on that. But I feel a need to address, as one uninterrupted train of thought, the most recent astonishing pronouncement from. Perhaps he should ask the Kari Brandenburg about his certitude that APD does not engage in retaliation. I'll pursue my own privacy issue through the proper channel, but the important point here is that is dismissing safety concerns about which he has no information whatsoever. I will not be bullied into exacerbating them, nor will I be bullied into letting distort the account of this homicide on Wikipedia.

I feel also the need to point out (and should not feel this need imho) that I have had a global account for almost five years, although I created this username in 2007. Before that I had some IP edits, almost all of the copywriting variety. I came to Wikipedia through the Open Education Repository. As noted in my user profile, my background is computer networking and internet security. I have more than 19,100 contributions on 18 projects. I usually translate and currently am working on articles about trade theory (en->fr), the appeals process in French law (fr->en) and Mexican proto-punk(es->en).

Not only do I seriously have other things to do than be schooled on What is Wikipedia -- much less privacy on the internet, omg -- by Beanyandcecil, I get very few complaints about my ability to communicate ;) let alone my mental stability, forsooth.

I can of course make a mistake like anyone else, but my work is autopatrolled on Wikimedia Commons and I have had an IP block exemption on English Wikipedia, so there have been a couple of findings already that on the whole I try to do the right thing and often actually do. I have been profoundly involved as a 3rd party mediator in big messy disputes both here at NPOV and at the RS noticeboard and on talk pages. Articles like Ugg boot, Leopold II of Belgium.

Recently I extensively contributed to Panama Papers. I am somewhat familiar with BLP policy ;) Before that, Stop Online Piracy Act (remember the day they turned off Wikipedia?). Yeah, I've heard of NPOV. No blocks, ever, not even any administrative contact not initiated by me, I don't think.

And ;) someone who just now broke 500 edits this month wants to explain to me that Wikipedia has an NPOV policy. Because I letting my emotions govern my edits. Or something.

Bah. Back to diffs, sorry about the delay there.


 * Elinruby wrote, One of the things I need help with is keeping my temper.


 * And this from someone who says that MY responses are angry.


 * Elinruby wrote, Another is trying to explain NPOV to Beanyandcecil, because he is sure not listening to me, and I have been working on this for more that a week full-time, and come on, that is ridiculous.


 * NPOV doesn’t seem that difficult a concept.


 * Elinruby wrote, He has said he doesn't care what I or anyone else thinks of his OR, because he is sure he is right.


 * I really wish that you'd stop both misquoting me AND making up things that you think I've said. It's really not that difficult to go back to the page where you allege something was said and do a search for it.  You not only are confused about my words, but keep telling others on this page and at least one other, that I've said things that I've NEVER said.  I said quite clearly that I'd looked at the WP definition of OR and that, in my opinion I've not put up any OR.  OR requires interpretation and none is required to see that the knife is partially serrated.  That only take observation.  It's NOT subject to interpretation, the reason that OR is not allowed.  I've written this repeatedly and YOU'VE NEVER RESPONDED DIRECTLY TO IT.  You just keep repeating that the description of the knife is OR, never stating why you think it is.


 * Elinruby wrote, Perhaps he will listen to several of you. Whatever you do though, do not attempt to explain anything inline as he will inline-answer your explanation to tell you how wrong you are and ping you for each inline alleged refutation.


 * If several of you means someone with authority, rather than just opinions for other editors, I'll be happy to. But if it just means more editors with more opinions, then my statement remains the same.  What you call  "technicalities"  are what make up the rules that WP and most other institutions are based upon.  One does not get their own interpretations of the guidelines and rules.


 * As to ping you for each inline alleged refutation, when this discussion began BOTH Activist and Elinruby pinged me relentlessly for days. I pinged them back so they'd be aware of my responses.  Now, Elinruby has asked me to stop pinging her and I have.  But to put this here as if I had started it, is an good example of what she's doing with this Article.  She's also complained that she's unable to follow my edits on these talk pages.  When I was pinging her when I'd make an addition, it seems that it would be easier than now, that I'm no longer pinging her, but that's her request.


 * Elinruby wrote, Perhaps he should ask the Kari Brandenburg about his certitude that APD does not engage in retaliation.


 * This is just paranoia run amuck.  There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that APD has engaged in  "kill[ing]"  anyone outside of a duty−related incident.  If Elinruby has some evidence of officers killing Wikipedia editors that post things they might not like, have her present it here.  Otherwise it's nothing but obsessive ramblings.  Equating the filing of charges against a DA to prevent or in response to a filing of charges against some police officers is one thing.  The stalking and killing of a Wikipedia editor for posting information that they may not like is quite another.  This is BEYOND absurd.  But this is the sort of thing that happens when people let their emotions run away.


 * Elinruby wrote, I feel also the need to point out (and should not feel this need imho) that I have had a global account for almost five years, although I created this username in 2007. Before that I had some IP edits, almost all of the copywriting variety. I came to Wikipedia through the Open Education Repository. As noted in my user profile, my background is computer networking and internet security. I have more than 19,100 contributions on 18 projects. I usually translate and currently am working on articles about trade theory (en->fr), the appeals process in French law (fr->en) and Mexican proto-punk(es->en).


 * Thanks for your service to the community. But I doubt that any of those topics bring out anywhere near the emotions that does the killing of someone by the police, particularly these days.  And so, while I've not looked at your other edits, I doubt that there is as much confrontation over the topic as there, quite naturally is, over this one.


 * Elinruby wrote, Not only do I seriously have other things to do than be schooled on What is Wikipedia -- much less privacy on the internet, omg -- by Beanyandcecil, I get very few complaints about my ability to communicate ;) let alone my mental stability, forsooth.


 * Just a few lines back you told us that you needed help in keeping [your] temper under control. I think that goes to mental stability forsooth.


 * Elinruby wrote, I can of course make a mistake like anyone else, but my work is autopatrolled on Wikimedia Commons and I have had an IP block exemption on English Wikipedia


 * Just as a LEO can make a mistake or purposefully do the wrong thing, these things do not guarantee that you can do no wrong. It's clear from your edits on the page under discussion that you are and you have.


 * Elinruby wrote, And ;) someone who just now broke 500 edits this month wants to explain to me that Wikipedia has an NPOV policy. Because I letting my emotions govern my edits. Or something.


 * I'm sorry that I'm fairly new to WP. I apologize deeply that I don't have Elinruby's experience or knowledge here.  But everyone has to begin somewhere, that's just how life works.  But again, I've not explain[ed] to [Elinruby] that Wikipedia has an NPOV policy.  She has this very bad habit of misquoting me and grossly exaggerating things I've said, that permeates her comments, her responses to me, and what she's written in complaining about me.  What's happening is that Elinruby is putting up information that only presents one side of the case, in direct violation of NPOV.  She is highly biased and her edits show it.  I'm merely presenting the other side.  Elinruby is determined to stop me from doing that.  She's allowing her bias and her feelings to overcome what she knows is the right thing to do.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

List of non-neutral statements (non-exhaustive)
The following list is the heart of the NPOV concerns. The insults, insinuations of bias, incompetence, wild assumptions based on his life experience, and OR make the problem more difficult to address, as does the editor's habit of copying everything said to him on the talk page and arguing with it inline. Swear to God, I really tried hard not to bite the newbies -- it's one of my own pet peeves -- but if the newbie just assumes he knows better then what is an editor supposed to do?

talk page

 * when another editor said his edits 'seem to me as if they're written by defense counsel for the shooters.' says he takes that as a compliment.


 * Yes, that's true. It means that my edits are on point, well written, accurately address the statements they're aimed at and that they are concise and succinct.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not going to guess what the other editor meant, but I find it entirely consistent with your statement the day before yesterday that you do not think you have to include the prosecution side of the case. ALL of your edits have a single direction --- minimizing the actions of the officers and blaming a shooting victim for his own death. You repeatedly, and at this point I would have to say shamelessly, misrepresent the content of your sources and distort the events to make it appear that Boyd was an imminent threat to public safety. You've done it below in this very section. And then you post a wall of legalistic nit-picks that discourage other editors from the discussion Elinruby (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * when another editor mentions "the shortcomings of the ABQ police force and LEO in general in dealing with the mentally ill" replies "nonsense! LE deals with the mentally ill thousands, perhaps millions of times a day in the US."
 * note: In the case of Albuquerque at least, the US Department of Justice disagrees.


 * While the DOJ found the APD wanting in dealing with the mentally ill, Activist impugned all of law enforcement with his addition of ... and LEO in general ... As I said, that's  "nonsense.  LE deals with the mentally ill thousands perhaps millions of times a day in the US."   It's quite rare that we hear of these thousands or millions of contact because nothing of this magnitude occurs.  They're simply dealt with as best as the system allows.  It's not the fault of LE that legislators have decided to empty out the mental institutions where these people used to get medical assistance.  And there is nothing in the DOJ report that address how APD dealt with Boyd in this instance.  It's an obvious case of guilt by association.    'If there was a problem with other officers on APD, there must be a problem with these officers as well.'  Yep, nonsense.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not the Activist whisperer but I am pretty sure that if you have confined yourself to asking for a reference in a civil manner, he would have provided one. Elinruby (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

article

 * unsourced "clarification", as he calls it in edit summary, that Boyd "threatened one of the officers"


 * I don't find any reference in the diff that Elinruby posted. There is such a reference in the NEXT edit though so perhaps that's what's being referred to.  It's well documented AND sourced that when the Open Space officers first made contact with Boyd, he produced not one, BUT TWO knives and threatened the officers.  There's links that I've supplied to several news stories that support it.  There's even a witness statement from the original caller to the police department that he heard Boyd threaten to kill the officers if they tried to touch him.  IN FACT there are TWO citations for the statement that follow it in the diff.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * argh I am pretty sure I have had this same conversation with you about six times, but you have to not only provide citations, they have to back up what you say. But maybe where I've seen those before was your relentless campaign to make the pocket knife seem dangerous, which they didn't substantiate either. I don't have time to watch those videos again right now. Since you've started editing the page again and I've said I'll respond I'll look when I do that. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * changes "and the dog tore at his leg" to "the police dog was again sent to bite him.", which certainly minimizes the gore and leaves open the question of whether the dog actually did bite.
 * this is the problem with video. I'd say "tore at his leg" is a very subdued summary of that sequence. It would probably be more factual to say the dog took his leg and shook it like a terrier shakes a rat. which has nothing to do with the fact that Boyd bled to death, of course. Of course not. As for the diff, welcome to my world. I'll verify the ones where you say you can't find what I am talking about. I am encouraged that you are actually looking at sources now :) As for serves no purpose -- if we want a factual account of what happened then this should include everything that happened. Whether we WP:DONTLIKEIT or not. This was DEFINITELY not the bite and hold situation you are implying in a genteel manner might possibly have happened.Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does minimize the gore which serves no purpose other than to inflame the emotions of the readers. And again, Elinruby's diff has no connection to what is discussed in the preceding paragraph.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * removes "One of the officers responsible for the shooting" next to an officer's name - this one might be justifiable as BLP as this was before the verdict and "responsible" is a legal term. Except that a) not even Sandy disputes that Sandy shot him and b) the edit summary says he is "Correcting errors. Cleaning up language" which is.... kind of misleading. It makes it sound like typos or english that he is correcting. Elinruby (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No police officers were responsible for the shooting. The responsibility for what happened in this incident lies with Boyd.  Had the officers been convicted of murder, it would be appropriate to use that language.  At the time the trial was not over and responsibility had not been determined, therefore it's inappropriate to use the language that was used before my edit.  And now that the jury has voted 9 to 3 for acquittal.  It's even more inappropriate to use that reference.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Boyd magicked the bullets out of the gun and into his back, yeah I know. The officers just happened to be there and had nothing to do with the matter. Come on. Their own testimony says that they shot him and they shot him on purpose. I'm not married to "responsible" if you feel it implies legal responsibility, but in an article with this many moving parts it would be well to somehow indicate that this particular officer, the one we are talking about there in that sentence, was one of the ones who pulled a trigger. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * changed "He threatened police officers who came near him" to "He threatened to kill any police officer who came near him." This is described in the edit summary as a "minor correction". Leaves reference saying Boyd threatened 19 times to kill police officers. Nothing there about "any" or for that matter "near him", but I am not sure at the moment where the latter came from.Elinruby (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Boyd did threaten to kill any officer who came near him.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * um one of your references is your own edit to the article and the other one doesn't support your statement. The closest it comes is a defence attorney asking a witness whether Boyd threatened the officers. Nothing there about "any". The witness was 100 yards away and had initiated the situation by calling 911, so self-justification can't be ruled out. The witness does agree but your statement is considerably stronger. May I point out that the crisis intervention officer was not threatened, even though the defense theory is that he was too close to Boyd and therefore in danger? And that *you* said this was irrelevant, just the other day, and moved it out of the lede? Elinruby (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"just paranoia run amuck. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that APD has engaged in  "kill[ing]"  anyone outside of a duty−related incident.  If Elinruby has some evidence of officers killing Wikipedia editors that post things they might not like, have her present it here.  Otherwise it's nothing but obsessive ramblings.  Equating the filing of charges against a DA to prevent or in response to a filing of charges against some police officers is one thing.  The stalking and killing of a Wikipedia editor for posting information that they may not like is quite another.  This is BEYOND absurd.  But this is the sort of thing that happens when people let their emotions run away."
 * this mind you from someone who complains of being misquoted. I said APD kills people. I didn't say this; the United States Department of Justice said this, in the report BnC dismisses as "political correctness". I didn't say anyone was stalking me. I said BnC was dismissing safety concerns of which he knows nothing. He should read the DoJ report. Elinruby (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Since this is going to be another hat note, fine, since apparently you are not going to reconsider and ::cough:: re-read the page, let's go there. At one point I thought you might actually be capable fo discussion. I am going to try AGAIN. Anyone can post a wall of accusations, you know.
 * Somehow in creating this new section Elinruby managed NOT to include the comment she wrote
 * I was actually looking for that in your wall of off-topic refutation; thanks. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

that drew my response which appears just below. Removing the context of my comments is something that Elinruby does with great frequency,
 * I suppose if the torrents of text are context (?) Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

and here, she does it again.
 * I thought this was about what I said? Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This came up when she was again on a rant
 * please specify. I am not aware of ranting to date, although I am about to do so. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

about how I've kept  "personal information"  about Activist. I have not, the information he posted contains no personal information.
 * OMG I've hoping you will re-read that page and stand down. Let me help you. At WP:OUTING the third word of the second sentence is "includes". Nothing there about "is limited to". I don't know this other editor but he seems to feel the information could be used to identify him. I see no reason to question that and have to wonder why *you* feel the need to second-guess it. Still in the first paragraph, the 7th sentence says "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia" so why do you think it's ok? You're the one waving this policy around. Even if your actions were *not* outing, which I very much question, I fail to comprehend why you would do such a thing. He wanted to delete something he said to you. Why would you immediately jump to the conclusion that he is lying or has something to hide, which was your stated reason for posting the conversation to your page? My point is your acerbic and confrontational style. This is not considered laudable behavior on wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Elinruby wrote this, "If an editor feels his privacy is at risk who is BeanyandCecil to question that? Chilling effects doesn't begin to cover it; APD is known for killing people for crying out loud. *I* feel intimidated by this action and have removed some identifying details from my account because of it." [Emphasis is mine].
 * OK? where in there did I say I though anyone was stalking me? I removed some identifying details from my page. One of these things is not like the other, dude. Its very hard not to find these kinds of leaps of logic amusing ;) Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I responded, " Elinruby's obsession is so severe that she fears that APD will kill her for daring to post on WP!? Good grief, could there be any deeper emotional involvement? Get a grip."
 * MMM. I think it is telling that this is your interpretation of the remark. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Her response was this, "Perhaps he should ask the Kari Brandenburg about his certitude that APD does not engage in retaliation.
 * Why is that silly pray tell? You can question whether she is correct, but she, a 4-term DA, is on the record as saying she was forced from office for filing charges in a police shooting. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * AFTER THAT BIT OF SILLINESS I wrote this, "just paranoia run amuck.  There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that APD has engaged in  "kill[ing]"  anyone outside of a duty−related incident.
 * I am not going to argue that point because this is not what I said. See above, ad nauseum.

If Elinruby has some evidence of officers killing Wikipedia editors that post things they might not like, have her present it here.
 * This is a ridiculous demand. A) I did not say this -- retaliation does not have to involve murder; ask Kari Bradenburg. B) If I had, this the neutral point of view board, not the let me explain all of the ways in which I am at risk board ;) Not playing.

Otherwise it's nothing but obsessive ramblings. Equating the filing of charges against a DA to prevent or in response to a filing of charges against some police officers is one thing.
 * As opposed to your walls of texts :)

The stalking and killing of a Wikipedia editor for posting information that they may not like is quite another.
 * You *keep* saying that ;)

This is BEYOND absurd.
 * yes ;)

But this is the sort of thing that happens when people let their emotions run away."}}
 * as opposed to people who post long self-justifying and acrimonious commments to prove they are easy to get along with?Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In the first part of the highlighted sentences you say you said it. In the next sentence you say you didn't say it.  So which is it?
 * They said it. I quoted it.Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Elinruby wrote, in the report BnC dismisses as "political correctness".


 * Ya know, Elinruby has claimed several times that I've called her a liar. I have not and the closest I've come is to award her some  "Pinocchios"  when she was inaccurate, prone to exaggerate, wrong, or careless.  I even said that I didn't think she'd ever exhibited the intent to deceive the readers or other editors, that lying brings with it.
 * Pinocchios = pants on fire, told you that before Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

But she so often misquotes me, when a simple search would reveal the truth and the reality, she's getting closer to it, simply by refusing to verify such claims before she makes them. Here is what I ACTUALLY wrote on this, The police department for the city that I live in ... suffered through several riots, and at least one ... consent decree from the DOJ. They too were told that they had patterns or practices of racism and using excessive force ... Occasionally the charges made by the DOJ was accurate, but more often the DOJ was 'engaged in a pattern and practice of political correctness,' and lacking in reality. That is just one reason that incidents involving UOF must be judged on an individual basis, not the results of a DOJ report that speaks to generalities.


 * So I'll give Elinruby another ten Pinocchios for her claim that I "dismissed" the DOJ report in Albuquerque as "political correctness."
 * I bring up one report, you reply with your anecdote about your personal experiences. That's how you've been rolling. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It's clear from what I wrote that I was referring to ANOTHER DOJ report, one conducted where I live. But it's really irrelevant to this shooting incident. The DOJ report did not examine the incident discussed in the Article. It occurred after the DOJ had completed their investigation. They only referred to it by mentioning a comment made by the Chief. My point back then was that each incident of this nature, officer involved shootings, need to be investigated on their own, to determine if it was justified or not. They should not automatically be classified according to a DOJ report, or any other.
 * heh. Classified as what, out of curiosity? I said you should *read* it, omg ;) Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Elinruby wrote, "I didn't say anyone was stalking me.


 * The insinuation was clear. And you were concerned for your own safety to such a degree that you removed some personal information from your WP profile.  It probably shouldn't have been there in the first place, but you did tighten up your security.
 * I am amazed at how quickly you attribute hysteria to other editors. I note that you switched to calling me "she" when you started this, also. Hmm. See previous concepts about preconceptions ;)
 * Elinruby wrote, I said BnC was dismissing safety concerns of which he knows nothing.
 * still do. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC) He should read the DoJ report.
 * The DOJ report did not address this shooting so it's irrelevant to this discussion.
 * Yes it did. It said that the police chief's remarks illustrated the nature of the problem. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I can confidently say that it does not say that APD has any history of retaliation against WP editors.
 * I hope you have had fun with this little straw man. I will be escalating these claims if they reappear though. Don't bite the newbies only goes so far. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Such an investigation is only useful to show general tendencies and what happened in the incidents that were actually investigated. Any such report should NOT be used to judge all officers, all shooting incidents or anything other than incidents that were actually investigated.
 * Nobody said anything about "judging". Except you. But when there's a finding that a police department regularly kills mentally ill civilians who pose no danger to anyone, and that it unnecessarily escalates incidents into SWAT situations then this is indeed relevant to an incident in which a mentally ill man who was doing what he had been doing for a month suddenly had sniper units fighting over who gets to be lethal cover. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

But some will do it anyway, painting anyone who wears a police uniform with the same brush.
 * Again, (9th or 10th repetition) this is insulting. I have included a fair amount of material that reflects well on individual officers, and would have added more by now if I weren't tied up playing silly-buggers with you Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The report IS quite useful for inflaming the emotions of a few. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're the one with the exclamation marks and accusations. Now can I explain some thing to you? We are on the neutral point of view noticeboard. The question is whether your single-minded focus on showing this to be a completely valid shooting, and that there is nothing wrong with shooting random civilians, can be addressed. It is not the Elinruby is mentally unbalanced board or the press is ignorant board or the Department of Justice is mean to police officers board. I am trying really really hard to work with you here, and taking a lot of abuse from you in the process. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Removing the context of my comments is something that Elinruby does with great frequency,
 * I suppose if the torrents of text are context (?) Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are. I'm sorry that you don't like my style of writing or my habit of taking your paragraphs apart to enable me to reply to you point−by−point.  I've noticed that you've copied that style in this message.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it's either that or let yur mis-statements stand or do a bunch of cut and paste. But it makes the discussion almost impossible to read for *me* and I actually know what you're talking about. I am fairly sure this is why nobody else is participating. You sound unhinged. Maybe I do too. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought this was about what I said? Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It is. It should be obvious that when you remove the context of an editor's comments, that the meaning of your responses lose their meaning and there may be confusion as to what you're talking about.  That's one of the reasons that I quote you so much.  So that the context of YOUR comments remains and it's obvious what I'm talking about.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For instance at this point I have no idea what you are on about. Hint: the name-calling isn't halping you make your case. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This came up when she was again on a rant
 * please specify. I am not aware of ranting to date, although I am about to do so. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This rant is about the same as previous ones. About the same misinformation.  About the same statements.  About the same selective quoting of WP policy.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please specify. If you mean that I don't agree that you can argue with the prosecutor in the article (my best guess) -- well sorry, no, you can't. You can quote someone else taking issue with the statement but you can't devote a paragraph to proving that she is supposedly wrong. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

about how I've kept  "personal information"  about Activist. I have not, the information he posted contains no personal information.


 * OMG I've hoping you will re-read that page and stand down. Let me help you.


 * The biggest help you could be would be to stop making these vague references such as re−read that page ... There are MANY pages about this part of the discussion being considered, so I have no idea which one you want me to re−read.  I've asked for this kind of clarification when you have made such vague references in the past and you've never replied with that information.  I have no reason that this time will be any different, but I'll keep trying.  Please tell me what page you want me to re−read by linking to it or otherwise specifying it.  I've asked you well over 50 questions between the three Talk pages that are running now.  You've only answered a few of them.  Many of them are questions like this, trying to determine what you're referring to.  Your refusal to answer these questions, makes it impossible to communicate with you.  At one point, when I'd asked you why you weren't answering my questions, you replied that you were "not aware of any unanswered questions." in response I posted a list of approximately 20 questions that I'd asked you.  You responded to some, but still did not answer most of them.  Now the count has climbed quite a bit.  I pinged you for most of those questions when they were asked.  But recently you asked me to stop pinging you.  But I'm pretty sure that most of them were asked before that occurred.  You've yet to answer more than just a few of them.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

At WP:OUTING the third word of the second sentence is "includes". Nothing there about "is limited to".


 * Here's what it says,  "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether any such information is accurate or not."  There's nothing in his message that even remotely resembles ANY of this material.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * so even when I lead you to the word, because you said I was vague and not specific, you still think "includes" means that nothing else counts?Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know this other editor but he seems to feel the information could be used to identify him. I see no reason to question that and have to wonder why *you* feel the need to second-guess it. [Emphasis is mine]. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know him either. I think his FEELING is unreasonable.  I decided to retain it because I've seen people change their story about their background.  If this was to occur, I'd have his own words to use to impeach him.  If Activist thought that there was information that might allow me or anyone else to 'out' him, he should never have posted it.  He should know that WP retains EVERYTHING that's written here.  He should know that even though he pinged you and I, that ANYONE could have gone to his user talk page and seen the material.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * YOU ARE NOT IN COURT AND WE DON'T IMPEACH OTHER EDITORS.

Still in the first paragraph, the 7th sentence says "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia" so why do you think it ok?


 * I suggest that you read WP's definition of  "personal information."  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You're the one waving this policy around.


 * Actually, BOTH of us are  "waving [it] around."  The difference is that I actually understand what it says.  You, OTOH, are cherry picking the words that you like and ignoring the rest.  It's my opinion based on 30 years of doing investigations that there is nothing there that would allow Activist to be outed, and I have no interest in doing so, even if that information was present.  Let's not forget that even if I were to remove it, WP keeps it.  Have you and/or Activist demand that WP remove it?  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Your 30 years of investigations are irrelevant. Not everyone lives in a big city. You don't know the circumstances. I have lived in places with a population of 134 where that would be plenty. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if your actions were *not* outing, which I very much question,


 * Retaining comments made by another editor is *not* outing by any standard. Sounds like you're accusing me of acting in bad faith.  Is that what you're doing?  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ummm.... me? Accuse you of actuing in bad faith? Well, it would be nice if I could trust your edit descriptions, it would be nicer if you stopped calling me crazy and above all it would be wonderful if you would listen when someone tries to explain something to you. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I fail to comprehend why you would do such a thing.


 * Explained just above. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You know best?Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

He wanted to delete something he said to you.


 * He's free to do so from his own page, in fact, I think we've discussed this already, and he has deleted it. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Why would you immediately jump to the conclusion that he is lying or has something to hide, which was your stated reason for posting the conversation to your page?


 * Another ten Pinocchios! I have NEVER said that Activist was lying or that he had something to hide.  Since you've made this claim, that this was my stated reason for posting the conversation to [my] page please find the message where I said that Activist was lying or has something to hide and show it to us.  I deny that I've said anything of the kind.  THIS is the sort of character assassination that you've engaged in for quite some time.  Twist something that was said or imagine that something was meant, and run with it.  Talk about  "bad faith!"   Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * that was a quote. You said it. You just said above that you wanted to impeach him. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

My point is your acerbic and confrontational style. This is not considered laudable behavior on wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't start out that way. But after dealing with you and Activist, that's what it became, but I didn't start it, I only returned it.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have done my best to be civil and continue t do so. I have bitten my tongue a number of times in dealing with today's wall of vituperation. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

OK? where in there did I say I though anyone was stalking me?


 * You insinuated that APD was going to kill you and in order to do that they'd have to find you. That 'finding' would be the stalking.  So that people don't forget, here's what you wrote, "If an editor feels his privacy is at risk who is BeanyandCecil to question that? Chilling effects doesn't begin to cover it; APD is known for killing people for crying out loud. *I* feel intimidated by this action  and have removed some identifying details from my account because of it." [Emphasis is mine].  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I said they kill people. I said nothing about them needing to find me. And the fact that I have removed identifying information doesn't mean I think they are coming after me with guns, omg :P

If Elinruby has some evidence of officers killing Wikipedia editors that post things they might not like, have her present it here.
 * This is a ridiculous demand.


 * Yes, I know. It's about as ridiculous as your statement that you feel intimidated because I won't delete the statement that Activist made.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * A) I did not say this


 * Yes, I know. As I've said many times now, you insinuated it by your inclusion of the statement APD is known for killing people for crying out loud. immediately before writing I feel intimidated by this action.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are reading in ... wierdness .. which is simply not there. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise it's nothing but obsessive ramblings. Equating the filing of charges against a DA to prevent or in response to a filing of charges against some police officers is one thing.


 * As opposed to your walls of texts :)


 * I much prefer my walls of texts to your obsessive rambling. But as I said, "Everyone's a critic."  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

But this is the sort of thing that happens when people let their emotions run away."


 * as opposed to people who post long self-justifying and acrimonious commment to prove they are easy to get along with? Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep, long [comments]. It's necessary to respond to your messages.  Self−justifying No need for such a thing.  Acrimonious Most often it's in response to your rancorous messages.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Ya know, Elinruby has claimed several times that I've called her a liar. I have not and the closest I've come is to award her some  "Pinocchios"  when she was inaccurate, prone to exaggerate, wrong, or careless. I even said that I didn't think she'd ever exhibited the intent to deceive the readers or other editors, that lying brings with it.


 * Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, let me try to clear this up. Here's what it looks like if I were to call you a liar.  I'd say, simply and directly, "Elinruby is a liar!"  But I've never done that and unless I can prove that you purposefully intended to deceive, never would.  But you HAVE exaggerated, been careless with facts, twisted my words, completely misquoted me and been inaccurate, or simply, factually wrong.  Those can occur through carelessness, allowing emotion to override good sense or simply by a mistake of fact.  So awarding you Pinocchios is NOT the same thing as calling you a liar, no matter how much you try to twist my words to make it appear that I'm calling you a liar.  Here's one of the MOST EGREGIOUS statements you've claimed I made. Beanyandcecil was saying since neither of us was an LEO who has used lethal force we should not edit the article, as we were doing, to reflect the trial.  I've NEVER said anything even close to that.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume you're joking. If not this sort of legalism would be a major issue in my attempt to assume good faith.
 * I HAVE said  "I find it amazing that someone who doesn't know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun is passing judgment on LE tactics on a barricaded suspect and LEO interactions between the police and mentally disturbed, dangerous, assaultive suspects. But I see it quite a bit.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised when people with no expertise do this, but I always am.  I wouldn't ask my plumber for a second opinion on my heart surgery, my landscaper for advice on what siding to put on my house, or the burger flipper at McDonald's for advice on how best to train my dog.  But that doesn't stop, or even slow some folks down from what we see here."   Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Your comment in response was, Welcome to Wikipedia.


 * And I have said this, (in reference to people who know nothing about LE tactics or methods)  "... it displays an astounding arrogance that these folks know better than people who have been trained and educated for this job and, many of whom, have been doing the job for decades."  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In response Elinruby wrote, He has repeatedly ranted on about the arrogance of those who would question the rights of policemen. I've asked the meaning of her statement, the rights of policemen  a couple of times, but she's not answered.  And ACTUALLY she's wrong, it's another of her many exaggerations, I had used the word "arrogant" exactly ONCE, previous to that statement, contrary to her claim that I've ... repeatedly ranted on about ... it.  Beanyandcecil (Usts no reason I should not edit the article, then, right? Especially since I read the material? Someone has to. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

So I'll give Elinruby another ten Pinocchios for her claim that I "dismissed" the DOJ report in Albuquerque as "political correctne ss."


 * I bring up one report, you reply with your anecdote about your personal experiences. That's how you've been rolling.


 * I'm reminded of the little story that Activist told us. Except that my anecdote actually was on topic.

It should be clear from what I wrote that I was referring to ANOTHER DOJ report, one conducted where I live. But this DOJ report done on APD is really irrelevant to this shooting incident. The DOJ report did not examine the incident discussed in the Article. It occurred after the DOJ had completed their investigation. They only referred to it by mentioning a comment made by the Chief. My point back then was that each incident of this nature, officer involved shoyotings, or other UOF, should be investigated on their own situation and facts, to determine if it was justified or not. They should not automatically be classified according to a DOJ report, or any other.
 * no it's not. The cover letter to the report says that the police response to this shooting demonstrates that the issues have not been addressed. It's hard to conceive of a good-faith reason for your insistence that this was an isolated sui generis event in which a homeless guy shot himself without police involvement. But. You refuse to even consider that. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * heh. Classified as what, out of curiosity?


 * Classified in the same way that they claimed for the shootings they examined. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * you've sliced and diced too deep. Dunno what you are talking about any more. !~
 * I said you should *read* it, omg ;)


 * You keep saying this, but the report has nothing to do with this Article. They didn't even investigate this incident!  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * yes it does, and I'll take a formal DoJ report over the assurance of some anonymous guy who claims he was a cop. Welcome to Wikipedia Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am amazed at how quickly you attribute hysteria to other editors.


 * You're the one who was so intimidated that you changed your profile. If you think that's hysteria, apparently the shoe fits.  I've never attribute[d] hysteria to any editor.  Since you've made this claim, please show us my statement.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * previously addressed> Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I note that you switched to calling me "she" when you started this, also.


 * You're the one who SEVERAL TIMES called me a  "mansplainer."  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * SO????? Calling you a man doesn't make me a woman. You are assuming again. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm. See previous concepts about preconceptions ;)


 * Looks like another of your, now infamous, assumptions. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The DOJ report did not address this shooting so it's irrelevant to this discussion.


 * Yes it did. It said that the police chief's remarks illustrated the nature of the problem.
 * Maybe on some other planet mentioning some remarks made by a Chief of Police is the same as investigating a shooting incident, but it's not the case here. And while the report does reveal some problems, it has yet to be shown that it affected these officers in this situation.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does, on the planet where they say that the remarks demonstrate that the problem which is the subject of the report remains unaddressed. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I can confidently say that it does not say that APD has any history of retaliation against WP editors.


 * hope you have had fun with this little straw man.


 * I did. When you insinuate such an absurd proposition as you did, expect people to run with it.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I will be escalating these claims if they reappear though. Don't bite the newbies only goes so far.


 * You can only work with what you've got. Let's see.  You've repeatedly called me a name, even going so far as to use it in the title of a new section that you created.  You've misquoted me repeatedly, you've claimed that I've called you a liar, when I have not.  There's more, but for someone who claims such massive expertise and experience as a WP editor, you've hardly set the bar.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand ready to take my punishment for calling you a man. I told you a while ago how to make a complaint. Do you you need the information again?


 * Such an investigation is only useful to show general tendencies and what happened in the incidents that were actually investigated. Any such report should NOT be used to judge all officers, all shooting incidents or anything other than incidents that were actually investigated. <i fixed your indent for you. I think. Since it's unsigned and just hanging out there it's confusing. If it's at the wrong level of indent please feel free to fix; mainly trying to keep this readable. This statement is yours. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Nobody said anything about "judging". Except you. But when there's a finding that a police department regularly kills mentally ill civilians who pose no danger to anyone, and that it unnecessarily escalates incidents into SWAT situations then this is indeed relevant to an incident in which a mentally ill man who was doing what he had been doing for a month suddenly had sniper units fighting over who gets to be lethal cover.


 * The part of your message that I've emboldened, is called " judging."   You don't have to use the word to be guilty of doing it.  As I've said REPEATEDLY, shooting incidents and other uses of force have to be judged by themselves.  AND here we have you applying the findings of the DOJ report to THIS shooting, basically doing that judging thing again, even though they made no such finding in THIS incident.  I do love your use of the term sniper units though.  APD does not have any sniper units.  They have a couple of specialized units and ONLY the SWAT team has snipers.  ANOTHER try at an emotionally leading statement.  I find your reference,who was doing what he had been doing for a month,  hysterically funny.  Basically you're insinuating that since Boyd broke the law for a month, he gets a free pass.  You conveniently overlook the fact that the Open Space Officers who initially contacted him were only going to ask him to move out of the city's Open Space area and into the adjacent area, where it was legal to overnight camp.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it fits the pattern. I didn't say that. The DoJ said that. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

But some will do it anyway, painting anyone who wears a police uniform with the same brush.


 * Again, (9th or 10th repetition) this is insulting.


 * There are people who will be insulted by a "Good morning." I've done nothing to insult you, but you see insults at every turn.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * bwahahaha oh wow AGF has a lot to answer for. You just accused me of bias, which you say is not insulting, and yet you reserve the right to be insulted by being called a man? Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have included a fair amount of material that reflects well on individual officers, and would have added more by now if I weren't tied up playing silly-buggers with you
 * No one is forcing you to write these comments. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just the desire to keep you from white-washing the article. But ya, good point. Probably time to escalate this. Elinruby (talk)
 * You're the one with the exclamation marks and accusations. Now can I explain some thing to you? We are on the neutral point of view noticeboard. The question is whether your single-minded focus on showing this to be a completely valid shooting, and that there is nothing wrong with shooting random civilians, can be addressed.


 * The internal investigation found the shooting to be justified. A jury leaned towards acquittal by a vote of 9-3.  We'll have to wait for any other investigations to be completed, but so far the score is 2-0.  No UOF is pretty and no tactical situation is perfect.  But I do LOVE how you've characterized this incident as saying the officers shoot   "random civilians"  as if they were just standing around shooting anyone who happened to wander by, conveniently ignoring the facts in this case.  Boyd was about as far from  "random"  as it's possible to get.  This is the sort of comment that destroys any argument you make that claims that you are presenting a NPOV.  And you do it throughout the article, you minimize the danger Boyd presented to the officers who were only going to ask him to move along, until he committed a felony, an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon on them.  And filling the article with emotional language, when just describing the scene would provide the required NPOV.  There's no doubt that Boyd needed mental health care, but until they made the situation safe by disarming him, nothing of the sort was going to happen.  You refuse to acknowledge that simple and obvious fact.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not said this in the article. (And you claim you don't insult other editors!!) Nor have I inserted "emotional language". Again, in case you missed it, this is an insult. If you think I am biased because I think this shooting should not have happened in this way, well, I submit that this reflects your conviction that you must defend the officers from any wisp of wrongdoing. My goal in this article is to create a neutral and balanced account of the events surrounding the shooting. That means we don't omit two out of the three bullet wounds, we don't insert weasel words, and we don't insert long dissertations into the article about how what the prosecutor said in her opening statement was oh so wrong. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not the Elinruby is mentally unbalanced board or the press is ignorant board or the Department of Justice is mean to police officers board. I am trying really really hard to work with your here, and taking a lot of abuse from you in the process.


 * You're not "taking [any more] abuse from [me]"  than you're dishing out.  And since you're the one who started it, if you want it to stop, then stop.  I'm just responding to your messages, and their tone, both on this Noticeboard and on the other one, as well.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "he's an idiot" -- in reference to a police officer's testimony, probably one of the three dueling supervisors at the scene
 * could be SwAT supervisor James Fox or Field services supervisor Jason Carpenter
 * "the officer with the hurt feelings" -- in reference to the CIT officer, Mikal Monette
 * "not knowing the details" unspecified other editors
 * "bias" ditto
 * "some people seem to want to believe"
 * "the truth is some do not understand"
 * "bias and emotions"
 * "would that people could set their emotions aside...but this is virtually impossible for some folks"
 * "why would you not want to leave your message up for all to see? Is there something there that's untrue? Is there something secret that you don't want others to know? I plan on placing this on my Talk page, and not deleting it." -- with reference to another editor's personal information
 * "I prefer that you NOT "erase [any] part of [your] comments. They show a lack of knowledge of what actually occurred during this incident and perhaps a bias"
 * "Conjecture, mistatement and shambles" - first thing BnC says on the Talk page
 * "You have the facts and the timeline completely wrong. I suggest that you review the video, paying close attention to what it shows." - to another editor
 * "Before I found the article, it was quite one sided"
 * "he's gotten some facts wrong and I think that his emotion has crept into the editing" - refers to me, answering another editor
 * "It doesn’t appear that he's closely watched the video"
 * "I don't understand how you can continue to make this egregious mistake. It's especially troubling since I've described the details in depth in my writing on this page." -addressing another editor. I am not sure what the egregious mistake is; possibly thinking that de-escalation was possible.

list of OR statements inserted on behalf of defense

 * Per WP, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." Emphasis added. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In these LE shooting situations, a public that is not educated, trained or experienced in such matters will hold various opinions based on their general opinion of LE and how much they think they understand tactical LE situations. Usually the latter is based on what they've seen on TV and in the movies and it's completely unrealistic and not based on what actually happens to people in these situations, their abilities, their reactions, their emotional responses and more.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's easy to sit in the safety and comfort of one's living room watching calmly as a situation unfolds on your computer screen with hours, days and weeks to second−guess what a police officer did. It's quite something else to be there and doing it.  As the US Supreme Court said in Graham v. Connor  "The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight ... and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation."   Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * When members of the public, serving on the jury at the trial in this case, learned ALL the pertinent facts of this case, including the tactics used by LE, mindset and thought processes of the officers involved they voted 9-3 for acquittal. Activist and Elinruby think they know what happened, but they lack vital information that only sitting through the trial, or having a LE background in this material brings.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

talk page

 * "mental patients mental patients are highly resistant to pain"
 * "I've also had them change from quiet and mild to murderous, without an obvious trigger and without any warning. They are unpredictable and can be set off by many triggers without one even realizing that they've set them off, until it's too late."


 * I think that this was part of a semi−long discussion with Activist about the shooting, as opposed to talking about the Article about the shooting. And so I was drawing on my 30 years of experience in these matter to try to get him to understand how a LEO thinks during these situations.  But I can't find either statement in Elinruby's links, so I don't really know.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "argues that K-9 handler said "Phooey"" in response to suggestion on talk page (never added to article for RS reasons) that Perez says "Booyah" ; this is stated as fact although it is unsourced and does not match the audio. Elinruby (talk)


 * I'm wondering, how come it's NOT OK to bring up the allegation that an officer said  "Fooey"  to his dog, but it's perfectly OK to bring up the allegation that another officer said  "Booyah?"  Why is one OK and the other forms part of the basis of a complaint against an editor?  And as if that unfounded allegation was not enough, Elinruby says, in trying to paint an officer with her broad brush,  "There is a story about Perez's birthday; have you heard about that?"  spreading a hint about a completely unfounded and unsourced rumor.  It should be noted that I asked about that  "party"  but Elinruby never provided the information that was requested.  Wiki requires that editors communicate with one another to reach a consensus on editing, but Activist refuses to do so, and by refusing to answer over 50 questions that I've asked, so does Elinruby.  Do I need to start my own complaint here?  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * NOBODY said it was "not ok". This is happening on the talk page where we discuss things. Or try to. The reason I bring it up here is that goes with the single-mindedness of your edits. In this exchange I was trying to explain to Beany that he could not simply dismiss things by saying that they do not represent good police practice. APD, according to the DoJ, cannot be described as employing good police practice. The "Booyah" comment was never in the article and won't be unless it's very very very well sourced. And maybe not then, because as it is, the video shown to the jury captions the comment as "(unintelligible)". I believe, but cannot substantiate at the moment, that the caption originally said "Booyah" and was removed in response to defense objections. If it were possible to adequately source this it might substantiate the cowboy mentality that was the center of the DoJ report. However, I might even myself agree that it's inflammatory and open to doubt; I'd have to look into it, but it's irrelevant unless I come across a source. BLP would certainly apply in spades to any such edit. But that does not mean that we get to invent our own versions and state them as fact, either. As for the Perez birthday comment, I said nothing about a party and I did not follow up because the allegation is even more inflammatory and I don't want to feed it, above and beyond BLP. I should probably explain that as a former long-time resident I have been following the case on my social media networks, which include a number of Albuquerque politicians and reporters. I have not seen this suggestion made anywhere that I'd consider using as a source and even if the reason for this is circled wagons, it's not something that should be repeated without careful verification. I don't think I believe it, either, which is even more reason. But there are definitely people in town who do. K? Also, this is not a complaint. It is a desperate appeal for help in explaining Wikipedia policy to you.Elinruby (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "I suggest that you take a look at this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyJWbvk-KY4 It's from the highly anti−LEO site, PINAC (Photography Is Not A Crime) and shows one of their contributors, Charlie Grapski at the area where this incident occurred. At 1:04 on the video the camera zooms in on the sign that's posted at the entrance to the area. The sign is entitled "City of Albuquerque, Open Space Regulations. One of the activities that is prohibited is "camping and fires." Down at the bottom of that sign is this, "city and county ordinances. state statues, and federal laws governing resource protection public conduct and safety apply and violations are punishable by fine and imprisonment." [added emphasis is mine]." -- to another editor, implies that illegal camping is an arrestable offense based on a video he himself says is not neutral. (AFAIK "illegal camping" is a violation of a city ordinance; I provided a link to the city webpage where the rule appears). Elinruby (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Another place where the leaving out of context, changes the meaning of what's quoted. This goes back to a comment from Activist, "There was testimony last week from an officer who had supervisory authority on the scene who ventured that he I can't remember his name, but he appeared tall, thin, very short hair and light brown skin"  The material quoted above was part of my reply to show that there is a sign at the base of the trail, leading to the area in which Boyd was camped that CLEARLY STATED, that  "camping and fires"  are prohibited and that  "violations are punishable by fine and imprisonment."   The fact that this video is not neutral, it's by a group that is anti−police, should be a clue, to Elinruby and Activist, that the officer who wasn't sure whether there were grounds at all for Boyd to be charged. that there were, AT LEAST misdemeanor charges.  How anyone on the scene could miss a briefing that Boyd committed an aggravated assault with deadly weapons on the first two officers who approached him, is inconceivable.  LE personnel approaching were briefed and it was a topic of conversation on the radio repeatedly.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "He certainly lacks the necessary knowledge to be a peace officer. He didn't even recognize that a felony had been committed, much less the misdemeanor (probably) of the camping violation." - in reference to CIT officer Mikal Monette
 * Yes, that is one of the issues. Elinruby (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See above. It appears that Monette was so focused on his duties as a negotiator, that he completely lost sight of his duties and responsibilities as a police officer.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * His "responsibilities as a police officer" being what exactly? Shooting "that lunatic in the penis"?Elinruby (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "It's not necessary that he use the word "Taser." It's not that it's the  "police version"  it's that it's a reasonable conclusion to come to" - in response to me, about repeatedly adding the word "taser" to a quote because he thinks this is what the officer meant. He be may right about what the officer *meant* but a quote is supposed to be what someone *said* Elinruby (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC) edia.org/wiki/?diff=742580643] to emphasize it might be dangerous


 * There are several sources that say in the transcript of the conversation between the two officers (Ware and Sandy)  "unintelligible"  just before the word  "shotgun."  There are several sources that say that they hear the word  "Taser"  where others do not.  Since several sources claim that the word there is  "Taser"  it's appropriate to put it into the article.  AT THE SAME TIME there should be a statement that this interpretation is disputed by some and what they think the statement should be.  But Elinruby does not want this.  Conveniently she left off the rest of what I said.  Here's the full statement (leaving off a non-pertinent comment at the end of it).  "It's not necessary that he use the word "Taser."  It's not that it's the  "police version"  it's that it's a reasonable conclusion to come to after listening to the conversation between the officers and reading the transcript of it I've located several sources that support that Sandy was talking about a Taser shotgun, not a standard shotgun."      (I've now placed emphasis to show the necessary context that Elinruby has removed).  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * But in any case, at the time that Sandy made this statement, he was handling his Taser shotgun, and Ware, with whom he was speaking is  "ADAMANT"  that Sandy said  "Taser."  Even if that was not enough, Ware, looking for clarification with his friend, asks for his meaning.  Here's a transcript from Ware's dash cam where this discussion between the officers occurs.  I've placed the emphasis in this transcription.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sandy: What do they have you guys doing here?
 * Ware: I don’t know. The guy asked for state police.
 * Sandy: Who asked?
 * Ware: I don’t know.
 * Sandy: For this f***ing lunatic? I’m going to shoot him in the penis with a (unintelligible) shotgun here in a second.
 * Ware: You got uh less-lethal?
 * Sandy: I got… 
 * Ware: The Taser shotgun?
 * Sandy: Yeah. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

article

 * Unsourced description of knife


 * Unsourced? I placed this immediately after the description of the knife.  (Formatting removed to show the details of the link that was placed).   "cite news |url=http://abqjournal.com/372844/news/video-camper-turning-away.html |title=Video: Camper turning from officers when shot |author=Dan McKay|publisher=Albuquerque Journal| date=March 22, 2014| accessdate=August 24, 2015| at=0:15-1:37 in second embedded video, titled Foothills Shooting News Conference"   Looks like a source to me.  I included the time on the video where the pertinent act occurs.  Elinruby several times has quoted testimony from the same court TV without giving the time, on an hours−long video, where the statements alleged to be on the video, actually appears.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Unsourced addition to text:"Sandy then threw a flash-bang grenade toward Boyd, but it landed in a rocky area to Boyd's right. A police dog was released to bite Boyd but he was distracted by the flight and explosion of the flash-bang. A Taser shotgun was fired at Boyd, but it did not appear to have any effect. Boyd dropped the bags he had picked up, and retrieved the knives from his pockets, with one knife in each hand he assumed a squared off stance. Officers then ordered Boyd drop the two knives several times, but he did not comply." this and a similar edit are together described as "Corrections, Deleted material to move to new section, Deleted redundancies, General clean up"


 * These are observations that any educated person can make without specialized knowledge from watching the video that has been linked in the Article since long before I came along. It IS sourced in the "External Links" section as  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am quite well-educated thank you, and I have no idea about weapons terminology, as you have quite disparagingly remarked in another context. I have no problem with the description if you can produce an instance of someone else using it, and it should someone who is not the defendant if you want to say it in the voice of wikipedia. If want to say at some point, not in the lede, that Sandy or some other involved policeman described it in this way then that would also be fine. Assuming you provide a reference.Elinruby (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * in the same "cleanup edit" adds unsourced remark that "Because of the danger presented by the knives, one officer fired three bean bag rounds at Boyd."


 * I made this addition based on my experience in LE and what I thought was obvious.


 * THAT IS THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM HERE Elinruby (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not provide a source for it and it was inappropriate. Mea Culpa. As I go through the video of testimony from the trial, I have no doubt that there will be testimony that provides such a statement. When I find that, I'll replace the statement, providing a link to the video AND the time on the video that it occurs. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright, perhaps. If it supports the statement. But my major point is that this is not correcting the english or a minor detail like whether Boyd picked up a knapsack, a duffel bag or a cloth shopping bag, to give an example of something we have actually seen. It's a wholesale substitution of a different account of events, one which supports something that seems obvious to you, that it's totally fine to shoot a person who as police arrived was doing no more than being homeless and crazy in an isolated area at the foot of a mountain. Elinruby (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * still in the same edit described as "cleanup" adds " The dog grabbed one of the stuff sacks and brought it to his handler who had advanced his position towards Boyd, accompanied by two of his back-up officers. Boyd took a step towards the officers and stopped.  The canine handler tried to get his dog to drop the stuff sack and redirect onto Boyd.  While he was distracted doing this, he was about 8'-10' from Boyd, and was looking down at his dog.  Officers Sandy and Perez thought that he presented an imminent deadly threat to the dog handler and together they fired a total of six shots.  Three bullets hit Boyd — one in the back and one in each arm. He was turning an instant before they started firing and he fell to the ground, face down, still holding onto both of his knives. After he fell to the ground Boyd said "Please don't hurt me. I can't move." There is nothing at think link but a video.


 * As Elinruby says, There is ... a video. Any educated person can watch that video and make the same observations that I described.  It does not take any specialized knowledge.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

"But I doubt that any of those topics bring out anywhere near the emotions that does the killing of someone by the police, particularly these days. And so, while I've not looked at your other edits, I doubt that there is as much confrontation over the topic as there, quite naturally is, over this one."
 * BnC clearly has not looked at the articles I mentioned, which deal with alternate versions of history and genocide, and cultural appropriation versus paid editors. And SOPA less controversial? Panama Papers? Get outta here. Elinruby (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Speaking of "assumptions," Elinruby made one when she wrote, "BnC clearly has not looked at the articles I mentioned" In fact, I looked at both of them. I didn't bother to look at her "edits,"  She quoted my statement but then tried to twist it.


 * Here is ANOTHER excellent example of how Elinruby tries to twist my words to her own ends. I said, very clearly in the statement that she quoted to start this section,    "But I doubt that any of those topics bring out anywhere near the emotions that does the killing of someone by the police, particularly these days ..."   Elinruby changed the discussion so that she could talk about  "controversy,"  not emotions, which is what I was talking about.  Online piracy may be controversial, but based on results, it does not bring out the emotions of some editors as has this topic, the killing of a civilian by a LEO.  We don't see rioting in the streets, people throwing bricks at LEOs, arson and looting over the Panama Papers or Online piracy.  Elinruby is trying to inflate her own importance in dealing with "EMOTIONAL" topics by switching the conversation to one where she's discussing "controversy."  Mere controversy usually does not have people becoming irrational and imagining that people are going to stalk and kill them for their messages here, an emotional topic, as we've seen, may have that effect.  Now let's look at her statement.


 * you're going further and further into the weeds with this. Do you realize how off-topic you are? This is legislation from several years ago, and nobody has edited the page recently because the legislation was defeated. Doh. Wikipedia and Google both went on strike over this there was a discussion on Wikipedia with hundreds of participants. And that was only some of the protests. It's bad enough you don't listen to other editors -- stop adding personal attacks to the issues. And use Google before you accuse people of lying. Elinruby (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are where editors are supposed to work out differences in edits. They will reflect, to some degree, how controversial the Articles in question are.  The tone of those messages may (as in this case) also reflect how emotional some editors are about those disagreements.


 * Take a look at the talk page for SOPA. − Seven headings in the table of Contents, and #6 and #7 are the same. NOT ONE entry by Elinruby!  The entire talk page is less than six screens long.


 * Now take a look at the Talk Page for Panama Papers. − It's so small that the editors haven't even added a Table of Contents! It's only seven screens long.  Doesn't look like there's been too much "controversy" to me.
 * only a few overturned governments ;) and a *lot* of criminal investigations. For your information, a lot of the ramifications have spun off and/or have been moved in other pages; the effects on David Cameron's career being an example. The controversy there usually takes the form "offshore shell companies are legal" vs "how does Vladimir Putin's best bud wind up with a billion dollars?" For your information. I am sure you'll soon explain how wrong I am about that though. 23:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * By comparison, the Talk page for the Shooting of James Boyd. – There are 16 headings in the Table of Contents and the Talk Page is about 35 pages long. I'll concede that much of that length is due to my method of replying by quoting the author so that everyone knows exactly what I'm referring to.  Nonetheless, it's not even close to the "emotionalism" of the articles that Elinruby just mentioned.
 * yes and all of that from one obstructive editor, eh? Who'd a thunk it?Elinruby (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is ANOTHER excellent example of how Elinruby tries to twist my words to her own ends. I said, very clearly in the statement that she quoted to start this section,    "But I doubt that any of those topics bring out anywhere near the emotions that does the killing of someone by the police, particularly these days ..."   Elinruby changed the discussion so that she could talk about  "controversy,"  not emotions, which is what I was talking about.  Online Piracy may be controversial, but based on results, it does not bring out the emotions of some editors as has this topic, the killing of a civilian by a LEO.  We don't see rioting in the streets, people throwing bricks at LEOs, arson and looting over the Panama Papers or Online Piracy.  Elinruby is trying to inflate her own importance in dealing with "EMOTIONAL" topics by switching the conversation to one where she's discussing "controversy."  Mere controversy usually does not have people becoming irrational and imagining that people are going to stalk and kill them for their messages here, an emotional topic, as we've seen, may have that effect.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll pick up the NPOV list with more diffs a bit later today but I think people get the idea. Meanwhile all editing has stopped on the actual article. Elinruby (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

María de los Ángeles Pineda Villa
This article has many problems. I am unable to speak Spanish.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mayor-43-students-speaks_us_562d28afe4b0ec0a3894c62c

http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/iachr-report-on-iguala-mexico-massacre-offers-no-closure

&#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Luhansk People's Republic
There is a content dispute about classifying the Luhansk People's Republic (LPR) as a terrorist organization, and a few other related issues. LPR is one of the three regions that recently broke away from Ukraine, with assistance and/or intervention from the Russian Federation. The Ukrainian government classifies LPR as a terrorist organization, but AFAIK no other state actor follows the suit: neither EU nor USA list LPR as a terrorist organization. The main issue is about including a link to the "List of designated terrorist organizations" in the "see also" section. I feel that having a "See also: terrorists" entry would be heavily biased, and is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV.

Please comment in the talk section.


 * Diff link to the content dispute: diff
 * The relevant section on the talk page: Talk:Luhansk_People's_Republic

Thanks,

H eptor  talk 19:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is biased.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not here, but at the relevant talk page. Note, also, that you're simply stating your opinion (i.e., you are !voting and ignoring what reliable sources say on the subject. Heptor's 'reading' of NPOV is incorrect. Added to that, the user is edit warring reliably sourced content out and tossing Category:Ukrainian irredentism into the mix without comprehending that the WP:BURDEN is on him/her to provide sources for such categories, as well as overturning multiple reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * With regards to Category:Ukrainian irredentism — the version supported by Iryna linked to Category:Irredentism, I updated to a more specific category. This is not the most important point however, this category does not need to be there. H eptor   talk 07:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The category that applies is Category:Russian irredentism, not Ukrainian irredentism. Please provide WP:RS for "Ukrainian irredentism" as you've been asked to do. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Listing it as Russian Irredentivism implies that Russia has a terriotorial claim in LPR, which it does not. As I mentioned previously, there shouldn't be an irredentivism category at all. H eptor   talk 15:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Luhansk is named at List of designated terrorist organizations, and the designation is part of Luhansk's own lede. No part of it implies anything more than that Ukraine made the designation. You're making a chicken out of a feather. Rhoark (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The bar for being listed on the List of designated terrorist organizations is incredibly low (for instance, after overthrowing the democratically elected government of Egypt and its largest political party, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian military-backed government outlawed the MB and declared it a terrorist organization). If that's really the issue, there would need to be a larger community-wide RfC about the scope of the list (if there hasn't been one already). -Darouet (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * How is adding the "Ukrainian irredentism" category to the article a problem to do with the list of organisations designated as being terrorist? Also, what 'bar' (other than POV and OR) should be applied to such a list? It's a list of contemporary groups designated as being terrorist according to reliable sources. Are you suggesting that it be proscribed in accordance with WP:CRYSTAL-balling? Whatever RS have to say on the issue at a later date is not our concern or function. Per Rhoark, a mountain is being made out of a molehill. The fact that the editor who posted this thread has been edit warring the article on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT grounds and declaring it WP:NPOV is just that: s/he doesn't like it and has focussed their energies on this article alone. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I wasn't commenting on either Russian or Ukrainian territorial claims, but on the "List of designated terrorist organizations." As Rhoark points out being placed on the list has nothing to do with labeling from "reliable sources," but instead by governments, which could be very unreliable. -Darouet (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that the lead (that is, the lead for "List of designated terrorist organizations") covers that list's scope adequately. It's fine within its own proscriptions/parameters. As to whether it's useful, that's another kettle of fish. I suspect myself to be a bit of a deletionist, but I can't see any strong arguments for not having the list, and I don't see that there's a problem with stating that the Ukrainian government regards them (and the DPR) as terrorist groups, and that it's wikilinked. The fact that this is the Ukrainian government's position is fully attributed within the LPR article, and given that it is on what is still understood to be its sovereign territory, there is nothing UNDUE about a cursory mention. It is where the war is still taking place. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Unsure about the lead for WP:DUE, but I agree that the Ukrainian government declaration definitely needs to appear somewhere in the article. -Darouet (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I do actually believe that it's due for the lead, but does look WP:POINTy as a line on its own. The Donetsk People's Republic lead does a better job of integrating the Ukrainian government's position. It might be more fitting to integrate it into the previous paragraph with the date the declaration was made. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The position of the Ukrainian government should of course be mentioned in the article. The problems with the current edition are that 1) The mention in the See Also section reads like "see also: terrorists" and it appears to categorize LPR as a terrorist organization in the Wikipedia's voice, 2) The position of the Ukrainian Government is aggrandized by being presented as the position of "Ukraine". The "terrorist" classification is controversial in Ukraine, so this presentation is not representative of the facts and goes beyond what is stated in the sources. Here is the diff link in question. H eptor  talk 15:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation as the position of the Ukrainian government being "aggrandized" ( [sic]) is your own POV reading. The sentence reads as, "Ukraine classifies the Republic as a terrorist organisation." How on earth can that be construed as "it appear to categorize LPR... in Wikipedia's voice..."? You're also misrepresenting the series of edits in question, being initiated by you No.1 here, No.2 here, No.3 here, and No.4 here, followed by a number of reverts back to that version by you. Where are your WP:RS for the "classification is controversial in Ukraine"? It's a statement of the government's position, not a treatise on whether everyone in Ukraine agrees, or political discourse on the position. The point of WP:TITLE is to stick to the subject according to reliable sources, not turn it into a personal essay. Honestly, it's time to drop the stick, Heptor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Without comment on other issues raised, List of designated terrorist groups doesn't belong in the "See also" section of the article. For one thing, it's already linked in the lead. Per MOS WP:ALSO, "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." It's also pointy and almost certainly undue. -Darouet (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noted your removal (and already thanked you for it). I'd overlooked it during the back and forth reverting, and should have removed it per MOS:SEEALSO. Thanks for catching it, . (I will, however, note that it's not unusual for duplicate wikilinks to appear in high traffic articles that attract multitudes of inexperienced users/IPs. I'd have to go through hundreds of edits to establish that it wasn't AGF, in which case it was not intended to be POINTy.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Few things escape your "eagle" / (harpy) eyes :) Sorry can't be of more help now! Thanks for working on the article. -Darouet (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, . I think that the lead could do with a little reconfiguration as it's conflating the Novorossiya Project with what the LPR has become, and should only allude to it briefly as does the DPR article's lead. I'll try to make some adjustments in the next few days. Whether I start an edit war remains to be seen. The 'Evil Empire' shtick is a big thing there are a lot of editors reticent to let go of. Wish me luck! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

SPLC
In a recent article "A Journalist's Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists", the SPLC profiled a number of people, including Maajid Nawaz, the founder of the Quilliam Foundation and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch legislator. Nawaz replied in an article, "I’m A Muslim Reformer. Why Am I Being Smeared as an ‘Anti-Muslim Extremist’?" Several journalists wrote editorials in their support.

An editor added this to the Southern Poverty Law Center. I created a section explaining the SPLC article, along with the criticisms it had attracted. This was reverted back. The link to the SPLC article and their reasons for profiling these two people was removed.

The SPLC profiles hundreds of organizations and individuals, all of whom are unhappy with the attention. While I do not think all of them should be mentioned in the article, I believe we should mention what claims against them were made by the SPLC before providing criticism. I would appreciate if other editors could look at this article.

TFD (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I do agree that if criticism of the SPLC is going to appear by people who've been profiled, that some aspect of the SPLC profiles should be presented. In practice both sides should receive very brief attention since the scope of the SPLC is large, and so is the article.


 * Regarding your edit, I would suggest that the specific mention of the lap dance, while perhaps affecting our own opinions, is over the top for an encyclopedia article on the SLPC. -Darouet (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The Young Turks and the Armenian genocide
Just a heads-up: there appears to be some serious POV-pushing going on our The Young Turks article trying to compare them to the historical Young Turks who committed the Armenian genocide. This connection is apparently quite commonly made by conspiracy-theorist alt-righters, but I sincerely doubt any reliable sources make the connection, and our article itself relies on sources that have nothing to do with the progressive media organization. This appears to be the same kind of conspiracy-theorist revisionist bullshit that says that the Nazis were communist liberals and Charles Darwin was more responsible for the Holocaust than traditional Christian antisemitism. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Input sought for a GAR re POV & use of sources
Hi, posting re Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1.

The discussion has been extensive, but with few !votes. The dialog has most recently centered on what sources should or should not be acceptable. It can be found in section "1.6 Wrapping Up", or a via a direct link to Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1.

Interested editors are invited to share an opinion, or to cast an !vote. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Dakota Access Pipeline protests
This is one of the more one sided articles dealing with a contentious subject matter that I have come across. There is virtually no discussion of the "other side's" view of things and the narrative is grossly slanted. I have attached a POV tag and opened a discussion of the issues on the talk page which has resulted in accusations of "drive by tagging", "disruptive editing" and inferences of politically motivated bias in my actions by other editors who have repeatedly removed the tag w/o addressing the glaring bias. The obvious NPOV deficiencies were enough to cause several editors to oppose the nomination of this article to be featured on the main page at WP:ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Without directly addressing the concern here, "equal" coverage is not a requirement for NPOV. Neutral does not mean equal, if "opposing" viewpoints are deemed insignificant or fringe.  I'm not saying that is or is not at play here, but in general, objections based on a lack of "equality" of viewpoints is insufficient to charge that an article is biased.  Instead, it should be shown that the article does not reflect the balance of viewpoints as presented in mainstream, well-respected, reliable sources.  We attempt to match reliable source coverage, not introduce "balance" by presenting a particular viewpoint as equal in representation, where it isn't.  Instead of claiming that one "side" is not "equal enough", we should instead present sources which show the difference in viewpoint.  You may be correct (or maybe not, I have no idea), but instead of seeking balance we should seek representative of source material. -- Jayron 32 17:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. For the record I think you may have misread my concerns. I am not asking for equality in the article. The very nature of the subject (i.e. "protests") all but guarantees that such is not possible. What I am asking for, and respectfully suggest needs to be present in the article in order to comply with NPOV, is an acknowledgement that there is another side and that they have claims of their own. Currently that effectively does not exist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable, third-party sources that present that side? -- Jayron 32 18:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I listed several in the discussion on the talk page. A couple are affiliated sources but I believe can be considered as reliable for the purposes of giving their view of the dispute. I am looking for more as time permits, but am currently not at home so my online activities are somewhat restricted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the article Ad Orientem said, "And we don't use Wikipedia as a soap box or platform for posting thinly disguised op-ed pieces, which bluntly is what this looks like." As the principle editor of this article I do feel offended to read this estimatation of the article.  Never the less, I have looked at the sources that this editor has provided to defend his suggestions and can find nothing to support his position.  Certainly I hope to keep the article non-biased, and if any editors can find information to present  a more truthful article, I would be very pleased, indeed.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I regret that statement which I believe unjustifiably impugned the motives of other editors, whatever my concerns about NPOV. I can only plead that I was rather provoked by various accusations being leveled in my direction at the time. That's an explanation, not an excuse. I apologize. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh well, it's easy enough to slap a tag on an article. I accept the editor's apology but I can not accept the fact that this editor has not done any follow-up.  Without intending to do so, I would guess, but this sort of thing always inserts a sliver of doubt in our readers, IMO.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * After being accused of disruptive editing, drive by tagging and politically motivated editing I took the hint and moved on. Over time I have learned the futility of fighting battles that are just not winnable. But this sort of thing is very discouraging and for some of our readers, the doubt is a lot more than a sliver. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I can only say again that I have done my best to present a balanced article. I have been unable to find well-sourced copy that would be appropriate that presents other POVs.  I have included the police reaction where appropriate.  To call the article "grossly slanted" and now say that it is bringing about "more than a sliver" of suspect about its accuracy and yet not be willing to help to bring the article to what you feel would be acceptable is not fair to my Wikipedia reputation, IMO.  This has been a very unpleasant experience for me. Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On the latter point I think we can agree. Overtime I've come to accept that some things about Wikipedia are what they are and it's not worth getting an ulcer over. I just try to help out where I can and I have better things to do with my time than get into pissing contests of this sort. I've seen too many editors leave the project over frustration with what they saw as its political bias. Last year I came very close to going down that road myself. After I was told on the talk page that questioning the balance in the coverage was evidence of not recognizing the right of people to protest, well like I said above, I took the hint. The article has long since been removed from my watch list. Which is what I am about to do with this page as well. I appreciate your work. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, take your ball and go home. Gandydancer (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if that's the right attitude. I think the article is well written, but when I read it, I am struck by the absence of any explanations by authorities, by the LLC responsible for building... and I write this as someone who is overwhelmingly sympathetic to the protests. It's not just for "balance," it's because any informed reader would expect to learn what police, or construction crews contend for their part. provided a number of good refs (one's a blog but the others aren't) that could be used to make sure readers have access to statements from "the other side." -Darouet (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for the feedback--I really do want to make an article that is the best we can do considering that sources can sometimes be difficult to find no matter what side of a subject one may be on. About the sources, I did look at all of them and found only two that I thought were acceptable, the two news sources.  I felt that the blog was not good for any info but I also felt that the primary source was not very helpful and the opinion piece would not be good for much either.  Since you feel that the opinion piece and the primary source would be acceptable to use I will ask our source feedback editors for advice.  Also, would you please take a look at the refs that you feel are acceptable and suggest additions to the article that would make it less biased?  Thanks.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd also point out that the current one-sided presentation makes it likely that thoughtful readers will ignore the entire article. For me, the lack of balance casts suspicion onto the entire presentation and makes me suspect (yes) an non-neutral point of view on the part of most of its editors. 214.10.6.24 (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for feedback and I agree. I've posted at the RS site and will wait for feedback.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * thanks for your note. I actually agree that the two news sources are the only that should be used. I also have a confession to make - that I don't have the time to make those edits you describe at the moment - and I apologize for that because I hate it when people mouth off with opinions about an article but don't do the work to back them up. So I promise I'll come back to this again over the holidays if the issue isn't resolved before then. -Darouet (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Issue of neutrality on the "naturopathy" wikipedia page.
Looking at the history, it seems like it's been a back-and-forth of edits. As it stands, the current version  seems heavily biased and slanted from my own point of view, which is my reason for bringing this up, and my earlier edit to the page.

Clearly there's some disagreement on that, however, as people are reverting the article over and over, so I think it would be worthwhile coming to a consensus on this.

Thanks for your attention, and I'm hoping we can resolve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.173.76 (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You'll have to be a lot more specific. Which statements are non-neutral and why? Which viewpoints are underrepresented? Otherwise you're just going to be ignored. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Political positions of Donald Trump (Trumpism)
The lead of "Political positions of Donald Trump" says, "Politicians and pundits alike have referred to Trump's populism, anti-free trade and anti-immigrant stances as Trumpism." [Gerald F. Seib (August 8, 2016). "Separating Donald Trump From Trumpism". Wall Street Journal.]["Mitt Romney: Vote for Ted Cruz over 'Trumpism'" BBC News. March 18, 2016.]

In the first source, "Trumpism" is sourced to Mitt Romney, while the second is an op-ed. Neither are acceptable sources for facts, and therefore also pose a BLP issue.

Also, no explanation is provided how accepted the term is, whether there is an agreed definition or whether the term is derogatory or neutral.

Does it belong in the lead?

TFD (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes it does, and speedy close this as forum-shopping by TFD : I do not understand why having the term "Trumpism" in an article about Donald Trump's political positions is the least bit controversial. People use the term "Trumpism" to refer to Donald Trump's political positions, making him one of many politicians whose political positions have been referred to as [THEIR NAME]+ism.  TFD's claim that this is some sort of a BLP violation is way off base; as is his claim that there is not sufficient sources.  For starters, what constitutes Trumpism is opinion, not fact, so "acceptable sources for facts" isn't particularly germane.  WP:NEWSORG makes it clear that it is acceptable to use opinion sources to say the authors of opinion pieces said something.  Authors of opinion pieces have said that Trump's populism, anti-immigration and anti-free trade stances constitute "Trumpism".  Politicians have said the same thing.  TFD might have a case for removal if the text read, "This, that and the other thing ARE Trumpism".  But it doesn't say that.  It says, "People say this, that and the other thing constitute Trumpism".


 * Let me address the "No explanation is provided how accepted the term is, whether there is an agreed definition or whether the term is derogatory or neutral." That's not the kind of detail you get into in the lead of an article.  That's a discussion for the body of the article.  I'd argue it's not even necessary because of the general innocuousness and ubiquity of [Political Figure]ism words.


 * I might also add that TFD has portrayed a very skewed view of what's going on at Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump. He's failed to mention that me AND a third editor both disagree with him, meaning that, at the present time, consensus is against him.  He's also failed to mention that the two of us have dug up over a dozen sources that use the word "Trumpism" to describe Trump's political stances, some of which he's admitted to not bothering to read, but still deems unacceptable.  He's also taken to drawing ridiculous analogies there.  It's pretty clear that TFD just doesn't like the term "Trumpism" and is using any and all excuses he can to get rid of it.  p  b  p  05:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Despite your accusations of forum-shopping, this is the only notice board I have posted this issue to and request that you strike out. (See WP:FORUMSHOP:"Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages....")  Indeed, you and two other editors disagree with me, which is why I posted the question here.  You can be of assistance by explaining what policy and guidelines justify your edit.  It is not that I do not like the term Trumpism, it is just that articles are not here to promote neologisms.  TFD (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Above, I point out that WP:NEWSORG justifies mentioning opinions in the manner the quote does. "Multiple noticeboards and talk pages": This is a noticeboard; Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump is a talk page; combined you have raised the issue in multiple places and therefore are forum-shopping.  Request to strike out denied.  p  b  p  11:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly NEWSORG allows opinions can be mentioned, but they need to be mentioned as opinions. In this case, we could say, "In his weekly column in the Wall Street Journal, Gerald F. Seib referred to Trump's political positions as "Trumpism.""  But then per weight you need to explain why that is important.  We do not for example talk about Clintonism in the Clinton articles, or Obamaism, or Bushism in their articles.  TFD (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Setting aside that that's a reverse WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, Clintonism and Bushism have articles themselves, indicating that there is sufficient source material for them to be mentioned somewhere. Also, why mention only Sieb and the WSJ when there are so many other people who mention Trumpism in so many other place?  p  b  p  19:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that the term "Trumpism" is used, but not widely used. Because it is used, it is appropriate to give the term a passing mention In the article ( perhaps with in text attribution)... but I agree that the term is not used widely enough to be mentioned in the lead. Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with Blueboar that some mention in the article body is merited, but not in the lead. A large part of the assemblage of Trump's positions are a part of right-wing populism and nationalism that can be found in many countries and places in history: "Trumpism" is not required to capture them, and the term isn't so widely used that it deserves prominence.


 * Also, the purpose of this board is to solicit feedback beyond the talk page. It is expected that any issue will be brought here only if disagreement is not resolved on the talk page first. TFD is therefore 100% correct when they ask you to strike the spurious "forumshopping" allegation, Purplebackpack89, and it's only fair for you to do so, while continuing to engage with them constructively, and presenting your views here too. -Darouet (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing is though that it kind of already had been resolved on the talk page; just not in TFD's favor. He was unwilling to accept what other editors had said and brought this here.  He's seeking to have you override what's going on at the talk page.  p  b  p  19:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * TFD is a reasonable editor and in good standing. There is nothing that prevents an editor who believes that talk page consensus may be unreasonable, in some particular case, from approaching the community for wider input from a greater number of hopefully uninvolved people. It often occurs that, for whatever reason, editors most involved in editing a topic might benefit from outside views. -Darouet (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If this doesn't belong in the lead, where in the article would you put it? p  b  p  19:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a perfect section is "Political philosophy - as described by others." -Darouet (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That would work for me as well. Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * One of the problems with presenting opinions without any secondary sources is that we lack adequate information about the degree of their acceptance. My original research finds the term is used by Trump's opponents.  But the term has received so little usage, that news reports have ignored it and Trump supporters have not responded.  Trump has been called a racist, fascist, misogynist, etc., but we should not call him that in his article.  And when we say he has been called that, we make clear that those are descriptions used by his opponents.  And we need to be consistent in following policies in all articles, so that a reader cannot tell whether whether the articles were written by supporters or opponents.  TFD (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's a stretch to ascribe a derogatory connotation to "Trumpism". Calling Trump himself a Trumpist isn't derogatory, it's self-evident.  Calling somebody else a Trumpist is only derogatory if you consider the tenets of Trumpism to be bad.  To equate the term "Trumpism" with much more negatively-charged words is ridiculous and wholly unproven by TFD.  I also think it's a stretch to say it is solely used by his "opponents"; even if you define opponents exceedingly broadly to include all detractors rather than just people who ran against him.   And even if it is (which I doubt), there's no requirement that anything said primarily by detractors be expunged by the article.  Finally, I consider the idea that it's "received so little usage" to be off, and, as you previously admitted elsewhere to not having read all the sources Mhhossein and I provided, I suggest you read them all before making further claims on sourcing.  p  b  p  22:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In time, "Trumpism" may become a recognized political position, similar to Marxism or Leninism being similarly named after the leader that was known for it (and I don't meant to imply any connection between them and Trump's position by those examples, they just serve as good named examples). However, right now, right off a hot election where the bulk of the media, generally left-leaning, found the candidate they didn't support winning the election, calling out the term is very much a neologism and politically-loaded. I agree that with only two sources readily backing the term, placing it in the lede is a NPOV problem, but it does have room to be mentioned in the article (in the 2nd sub-seciton on how others describe Trump's policies), and a redirect is also reasonable. --M ASEM (t) 22:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a lot more than two sources that mention Trumpism. Please see Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump  p  b  p  23:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, so there's a fair number of sources, but I will still assert that WP:NEO clearly applies, and that more importantly, we have to recognize the political atmosphere this word is being coined in that it is definitely a word with negative connotation ( eg a situation of sorts like Campaign for "santorum" neologism). In a few years, we may actually recognize the term as a neutral means to describe Trump's policy position, but definitely not right now. --M ASEM (t) 23:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Although pbp says there are lots of sources, they are all op-eds, and there are no secondary sources commenting on the use of the term. And of course I cannot "prove" the term is derogatory, because I don't have any secondary sources which would be required to say anything about the term. But the oldest source appears to be from Mitt Romney: "Today, there is a contest between Trumpism and Republicanism. Through the calculated statements of its leader, Trumpism has become associated with racism, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, vulgarity and, most recently, threats and violence. I am repulsed by each and every one of these." That use is clearly derogatory and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. TFD (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Abd-ru-shin
This is about : should it be stated like fact or should it be attributed as "there are authors who contend that..."? As the reliable sources make clear, Abd-ru-shin himself claimed to be the Messiah in a book (In the Light of Truth a.k.a. the Grail Message) and later hid this claim from the public, in the subsequent editions of that book.

At Abd-ru-shin complained that the newspapers called him the Messiah of the Tyrol and the Prophet of Vomperberg. Why would newspapers do that? Because they had read the Conclusion from the Grail Message! Later was the Conclusion removed from it. But not because he thought he no longer was the Messiah. What could his adepts do, then? Stoutly deny it and secretly recognize it. The genie is out of the bottle: once print-published means that it became a public secret.

Jiddu Krishnamurti has publicly denied that he is the Messiah, but there is no such denial from Abd-ru-shin. I have mentioned six reliable sources which basically confirm my claim. The WP:SPA editor who has watered down the verifiable information provided no reliable source in support of his/her view, i.e. that such fact would be debatable. As far as I can see on EBSCO and JSTOR, there is no academic source which denies that Abd-ru-shin claimed that he was the Messiah. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Why his adepts would deny that he claimed that? It has to do with WP:SPOILER:

"From the Grail  Castle  the  first  knight  of  the  Grail,  Parsifal  Imanuel,  came  as  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  to  Gross Matter to point the way to the spiritual heights. Unfortunately, he was killed and his teaching distorted by the church. At the end of the ages, the Grail Knight Parsifal Imanuel, as the predicted Son of Man, Abd-ru-shin, came again to reveal the Truth and bring the last judgment and the Millennium. Recognizing Bernhardt as this Son of Man is the most important challenge of the complicated and complex Grail Message. As he put it, “therefore, be on your guard, so that you may recognize Him as soon as His time is come, for that will also be your time!”52"

- Vojtisek (2006)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

"EPILOGUE

Abdruschin has now completed His Message to mankind. In him has arisen

IMANUEL,

the Envoy of God, the Son of Man, whose coming to judge and to save those who have not cut themselves adrift from salvation, was foretold by Jesus the Son of God in corroboration of the prophecies of the prophets of old. He carries the insignias of His high Office: the living Cross of the Truth radiating from Him and the Divine Dove above Him, the same in-signias as were borne by the Son of God.

Awaken, oh man! For your spirit is asleep!"

- Abdruschin

From the horse's mouth. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight Dispute
Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran Two editors disagree about an infobox created for a section of the article and whether that violates Neutral_point_of_view. The discussion about the NLA infobox hasn't been resolved. Wikipedia:Third opinion did not help either. Carpe765 (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Could we get some links to changes made by edits to the article to show a brief summary of what went on recently in terms of activity and/or disruption? Sagecandor (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Sagecandor, here are the examples: Example 1, Example 2

American Physical Society
This article has an editor attempting to interject statements regarding radical feminists taking over blah blah blah, with sketchy sourcing and general belligerence. I'm at 3RR and frankly am uninterested in continuing the discussion because I'm apparently Hiding The Truth (tm), so I pass it over to you folks as perhaps the best option for handling things. I've also alerted the Physics wikiproject. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Could we get some links here to changes that were made and which edits are objectionable backed up by sources perhaps stating the opposite, or something like that? Sagecandor (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Warp drive article is not impartial... it's a star trek fanboy page
The whole article is nothing but a massive advert for star trek. Only a few lines in and is all about star trek. There were some other title added at some point by other users and yesterday i added another title. Since then all the titles have been removed and a bunch of users are reverting and controlling the whole page by systematically making claims about what goes and what doesn't go hand in hand with the article while maintaining star trek as the pivoting point of the whole article. Warp drive was mentioned ages before star trek was even a sketch let alone popular television. There needs to be impartiality. Right now the warp drive article is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choice777 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Star Trek bias on the Warp drive article was discussed a while ago on the talk page - comments made there are still valid now. I'll repeat my final comment here, as it seems relevant, even though they were directed primarily at another editor at the time:  "Look - you don't like the subject of the article, fine - suggest it gets renamed to "Warp Drive (Star Trek)" and then write another article on just the generic concept of the warp drive - with appropriate sources and references, of course. I also reckon that the Star Trek Warp drive is the primary topic, given its level of popularity and perception with the general public. I think you would be hard pressed to justify having this article called "Warp Drive (Star Trek)" and then a stub entitled "Warp Drive" - but hey - go for it. Be Bold."  Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with here, that seems to be an acceptable and fair proposal. Sagecandor (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Related discussion at RSN
Since the discussion involves issues of NPOV, I believe it's appropriate to leave a note here:


 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since archived to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_216. Sagecandor (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hamas and EU litigation, length of section in Lede
There's currently a disagreement on the Hamas page over how much detail to go into with regard to the ongoing legal process around Hamas' terrorist designation by the EU. The discussion is wrapped around ideas of how to make the section as neutral as possible.

There are currently two versions being considered:

"Version A: 'Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel (1989), the United States (1996), Canada (2002), the European Union (2001/2003), Japan (2006) Egypt (2015), and was outlawed in Jordan (1999).[49] It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. Hamas appealed the EU blacklisting in 2008, and the European court found the earlier determination flawed. (2014). The European Council appealed the decision,.[50] and in 2016 its Advocate General advised that due to procedural errors, it should be dropped from the terror blacklist, unless proper and sufficient legal evidence to warrant its inclusion were forthcoming. It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group.[51]'"

"Version B: 'Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel (1989), the United States (1996), Canada (2002), the European Union (2001/2003), Japan (2006) Egypt (2015), and was outlawed in Jordan (1999).[49] It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. The EU's designation is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds.[50] It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group.[51]'"

I thought the issue had been resolved in the previous discussion, as out of the four who opined, there appeared to be a consensus for shortening it. These were the four opinions:


 * Masem: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=744735605&oldid=744734960 "Trying to explain the EU delisting is getting a bit too much in the weeds (I would leave it out until it's officially removed)


 * Me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=744856411&oldid=744836539 "I fully agree with Masem's suggestion"


 * Darouet: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=745020217&oldid=745011937 "If we are going to list the EU's designation in the lead, we also need to note subsequent developments. I still believe those two sentences about the EU process could be shortened, but they definitely need to be there somehow."


 * Nishidani: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=745011669&oldid=744926545 "The EU appeal is critical for Hamas's own perspective: it succeeded in a court challenge to the 'Western consensus' and that court judgement will, if acted on, affect the designation of 28 countries. Hamas's legal POV cannot obviously be ignored: if it is, we are saying the US to China axis are relevant, the subject itself has no political relevance, unlike them."

To me, this seems like a clear consensus in favor of providing a brief summary in the lede and going into detail in the body paragraphs. In version A, 44% of the paragraph is comprised of details of a legal appeal process, which is unrelated to the rest of the paragraph (describing which countries do or do not label Hamas as a terrorist group). To me, this is Undue. Any feedback would be appreciated. Drsmoo (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * We had a stable lead para, till Drsmoo started to object:

Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated by several governments as a terrorist organization. Others regard this designation as problematic. Israel outlawed Hamas in 1989, followed by the United States in 1996 and Canada in 2002. '''The European Union defined the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades as a terrorist organization in 2001, and put Hamas in its list of terrorist organizations in 2003 but such a designation was successfully challenged by Hamas in the courts in 2014 on technical grounds. The judgment was appealed. In 2016 an EU legal advisor recommended that Hamas be removed from the list due to procedural errors. The final decision is not thought likely to effect individual government lists.[49][50]''' An Egyptian court ruled Hamas was a terrorist organization in 2015. Japan froze Hamas assets according to its legislation on terrorist entities in 2006. Australia and the United Kingdom have designated the military wing of Hamas as a terrorist organization. The organization is also banned in Jordan. It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil (185 words, 1164 characters.)
 * Drsmoo after a long talk page stand off brought it to the NPOV board and a a long discussion ensued involving  external input from User:Masem, User:Hijiri88; User:Darouet and  User:The Four Deuces. Drsmoo's interpretation of that open ended argument is a caricature. The input was far more nuanced than he allows, but I doubt anyone has the patience to read the thread.
 * As a result of the varied input I boiled the above text down to the following:

"(B) Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel (1989), the United States (1996), Canada (2002), the European Union (2001/2003), Japan (2006) Egypt (2015), and was outlawed in Jordan (1999). It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. Hamas appealed the EU blacklisting in 2008, and the European court found the earlier determination flawed. (2014). The European Council appealed the decision, and in 2016 its Advocate General advised that due to procedural errors, it should be dropped from the terror blacklist, unless proper and sufficient legal evidence to warrant its inclusion were forthcoming. It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group. 118 words, 785 char7acters"
 * Darouet commented:'Nishidani, whatever Drsmoo's issue, I think your proposal is fine, but I think you should shorten it/I regard the summary sentences proposed by Masem, Drsmoo and Nishidani as all more or less equivalent.
 * Drsmoo insisted there was too much detail about the EU and Hamas. Convinced he had a mandate from User:Masem, he excised most of the above and edited in
 * "Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, and Japan and was outlawed in Jordan.[49] The EU decision is currently under appeal.[50] It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group. 82 words, 495 characters."
 * While doing this he also removed several sources in the lead discussing this, rather than putting them down into the relevant section this para summarizes. I.e. a lot of work just disappears w2ith his editing. He hasn't done any actual constructive article building.


 * Result. When (A) with its 79 words re the EU was challenged by Drsmoo, I provided (B) which pared those words down to 55. Drsmoo refused any yielding of ground. Worse, he boiled down the 55 words (the compromise) to a mere 7, a 90% reduction of the original text for which there is no mandate in that discussion.
 * "I.e. (C) The EU decision is currently under appeal"


 * This is totally misleading, indeed meaningless when not false. (a) The EU decision is not currently under appeal. (b)Hamas appealed it in 2008 and (c) won a judgement in its favour in 2014 which (d) the EU appealed, and appears to have lost (2016). In fact nothing is currently under appeal. All we know is that the EU's special counsel has said the grounds for appealing the European Court's judgement in favour of Hamas are not valid. In essence, Drsmoo has failed to read the sources, distorted them, in what looks like POV pushing. He has refused any reasonable compromise, and, in his (C) version essentially erased any comprehensible statement about the legal clash between Hamas, the EU, and the EU court proceedings. The POV consists in boiling down a nuanced para on the various positions regarding Hamas's classification into a list that says (a) the major Western are unanimous it is terrorist (b) the usual alignment of anti- and non-Western countries  disagree. Hamas is unhappy with the EU.


 * That is not NPOV. Whatever we think about it, Hamas's legal battle on this key issue is very important, and can't be buried under a big-power naming game, as if outside views of Hamas are more important than its own actions in seeking legal redress for being branded (nothing but a) terrorist (organization ).Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Currently the appeal is still open (and thus, still 'under appeal' until it is closed with a final decision.) However the opinion posted in September heavily indicates Hamas will indeed be removed as per the 2014 judgement (a failure of the appeal). But the appeal will not be finished until a judgement is posted or an order (in this case likely just a judgement to uphold the previous order). Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Drsmoo wrote:'The EU decision is currently under appeal,' which is false, since it says Hamas is still appealing the 2003 EU decision. It won a verdict in its favour for a procedural flaw: all the 2003 evidence, which formed the basis for the EU classification, was clipped from the internet without any input from the intelligence or political specialists in any EU country. I.e. it was not based on any institutional verification or legal process. Drsmoo confused the Hamas appeal (upheld in 2014) with the EU appeal against the EU court verdict, opened in 2014 in the wake of that judgement. The late 2014 EU appeal was judged as flawed by the EU's own special legal counsel this year. So, while technically, that appeal is 'open', it can't, according to the EU's own legal authorities, proceed in the terms originally given. It too is flawed. It would have to be reformulated, I think she implied, in her full judgment, which effectively means:'you fucked up, guys'. Work out something else. They can't therefore proceed with the 2014 appeal in the original terms. Whatever, Drsmoo's simplification totally confused the issue, and that is why extreme excisionism is dangerous. Readers should be given a minimal right to know what happened between 2003 and 2016 in terms of this decision, which will influence 28 nations' approach to Hamas.Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say but Nishidani's post is literally just factually incorrect, there was no "long talk page stand off", there were 5 posts made within half an hour, and I opened the NPOV discussion after 3 minutes. Nishidani just literally made that up. And this discussion is about the specific section dealing with the EU designation, not the rest of the lede which has already been settled. The EU decision is currently under appeal, that's the wording used in the court as well, and is factually correct. With that said, in the interest of consensus, I reworded it to "The EU designation is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds." However, Nishidani immediately reverted this as well. Which makes it curious why he's focusing on the semantics of "under appeal" when that doesn't appear to be the issue. With regard to the text above, there was a clear consensus for reducing the amount of detail in the lede about this one minor point. For some reason, Nishidani decided that consensus no longer mattered since he had already "compromised" and thus the discussion must be over even though there were still points of contention. I waited roughly a month for him (the only editor disagreeing with shortening the section) to respond before making the edit, which Nishidani then immediately reverted. As an aside nothing was "excised", I have no objection to Nishidani moving the info to the body, where it should have been to begin with. The lede is not supposed to contain unique information, and is supposed to provide a brief, high-level summary. Another curious observation is that while making the edit, Nishidani merged the paragraph with the paragraph above it, which doesn't share any content, effectively limiting the visibility of the whole section. I initially thought this was a mistake, but then he did it again so it appears to have been deliberate.  Drsmoo (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh for Chrissake! I can't keep in my memory all the bullshit expended for a month on just a few words in one article.
 * Let's cut to the chase: You wrote:
 * 'The EU decision is currently under appeal.'
 * Your edit here gives us this text
 * "Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, and Japan and was outlawed in Jordan.[49] The EU decision is currently under appeal.[50]"
 * Which EU decision does this refer to? Come on, man, clarify, for once. Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not what we're talking about, why didn't you post my most recent edit, which you instantly reverted? Version B ("The EU's designation is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds.") is what I edited, Version A is what you reverted it to. I had already changed it in the interest of consensus. It's about substance, not semantics, there is a consensus to reduce or remove that section and you have just disruptively refused to accept it. You're also not addressing why you merged the two paragraphs. Drsmoo (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are referring to this second edit.[The EU decision is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds.]
 * Hamas did not make an appeal on procedural grounds. Drsmoo confused earlier Hamas, the EU and the EU court, and here he confused Hamas and the EU court. It was the EU court that dismissed the case on procedural grounds, and Hamas did not make its case against the procedures used to draw up the blacklist.
 * "Whilst Hamas and the LTTE did not challenge the Council measures by which they were initially listed, they have contested their maintenance on the list, as a result of a series of Council measures, before the General Court."
 * This whole farce persists because, as in both the edits above, you keep emending the text without studying the relevant documentation. These issues are elementary: one reads, cosnstrues, and then paraphrases closely. If an editor can't manage that, then dialogue with someone you disagree with, can't help but being a nightmare. Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel like you two are spinning your wheels, and honestly, it seems pretty difficult to concisely describe the EU situation without prejudicing text in some small way. What about, "An EU court found the EU's earlier designation flawed, but its decision has been appealed by the European Council." ? That would leave a third clause implied but unstated - that the designation is being litigated. I'm sure has other things to do but maybe they'd agree to step in as a third opinion and help you both resolve this on the article talk page. You might also consider  who I think tends to be neutral on these nationalism questions. -Darouet (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, just leave out of the EU designation issue from the lede because it is rather complex to explain neutrally in a few short words, and better to leave the fuller explanation to the body. This keeps the neutrality of the lede (you're still listing countries with active statements about the nature of Hamas and whether they are or are not a terrorist organization) without trying to thread the needle this discussion is proving to be. --M ASEM (t) 18:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Masem. That would mean that simply because one editor, who has not contributed to the construction of the article, dropped in and protested about 185 words, which were then whittled down to 115, then 85, then 7, gets to have everything removed. Surely, that's just chucking the baby out with the bathwater? I can't see why this issue seems intractable. Getting it right is simply a matter of drafting, and balancing Israel's talking points (which dominate 80s of the article) with Hamas's POV, which is not much in evidence. Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that this discussion right now is contributing to the construction of the article, and aside from the fact that that's irrelevant in any case, the Hamas article is in my top 10 most contributed in Wikipedia. Why would you just falsely claim I haven't contributed? Drsmoo (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you guys reread the whole paragraph recently. We have nugatory things one of which has no development whatsoever in the body of the text.Gilad Shalit's kidnapping is highlighted: a huge thing for Israelis, certainly but something that eaves Palestinians indifferent since several thousand are held in detention by methods Palestinians call in Arabic 'kidnapping'. They regard Shalit's kidnapping as tit-for-tat for the use of administrative detention by Israel. Again 'tunnels' is an Israeli talking point, so it is highlighted in the lead, no balance (tunnels were originally dug to get round Israel's economic blockade, so severe at one point not even tampons, or nutmeg, or cinnamon, or potato chips could be imported. What so hard about understanding a simple sentence:


 * Hamas successfully appealed the EU blacklisting when the European court judged the earlier determination flawed. The European Council appealed this 2014 verdict. In 2016 the Advocate General advised that due to procedural errors, it should be dropped from the terror blacklist, unless proper and sufficient legal evidence to warrant its inclusion were forthcoming.


 * The bolded part is not in many news sources, but it's in the actual source. Newspapers reported this as a Hamas victory, which it wasn't. The text is more nuanced that copycat hacks allow. I have twice shown that Drsmoo screwed up his paraphrasing. Is there anyone who can show the above is neither correct in all details or concise? Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * NOTSOAPBOX Your personal political opinions are irrelevant to this discussion and have no place on Wikipedia. http://www.euronews.com/2014/12/17/european-court-orders-removal-of-hamas-from-eu-terror-list-on-procedural-grounds Nothing you just wrote is inconsistent with "The EU designation is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds." though if you have an alternative one-sentence summary please share it, as once again consensus is established for eliminating or shortening that section. I am fine with both Darouet and Masem's suggestions. Drsmoo (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are not soapbox opinions. I checked 20 articles against the court documents, and most were just repeating a simplistic meme, that got Hamas off the hook, whereas the Advocate General's words are nuanced. To repeat, editing competently meaning understanding the subject, not hairsplitting. I've been writing 2 articles a day over the last month, and just coping with this silly nonsense has wasted my time enough. Everybody knows that Nishidani is the only editor in the I/P area with a POV, all the others, mostly reverters, are here purely for 'encyclopedic purposes'.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For the third time, Drsmoo. Please try and focus on content. Now you cite refers to 2014, as if it were the last word, as per Darouet's proposal. In Sept 2016 An advocate general at the European Court of Justice, whose advice is usually followed by judges, recommended that they reject an appeal by the Council of EU member states against the lower General Court's decisions in late 2014 to remove both movements from the sanctions list due to flawed procedures
 * In other words, we can say the EU appealed (keeping the article updated to 2014) but absolutely must keep mum on the provisory result of the appeal in 2016. This is selective highlighting and repression of evidence per the desired POv outcome. Both 2014 and 2014 translate simply: The EU court ruled it was procedurally flawed. The EU appealed, and in 2016, its advocate general recommended the EU appeal be rejected. What wrong with adding those updated 9 words? Why this insistence that we must not mention that simple datum re the appeal process two months ago? Yeah, WP:RECENTISM., etc. any policy excuse for not being laconically comprehensive and up to date Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is how Ledes work, they summarize details, that's why there are both lede and body paragraphs. As for your soapboxing, personal attacks, ignoring consensus, refusal to assume good faith, and outright fabrications, I've had enough. Drsmoo (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you believed that you would have removed Shalit from the lead. It has no place except as a line or two in the main text, since there is no expansion there, and no expansion is necessary. You attack me. Well, yeah. I do get pissed off, because I work my fucking butt off creating articles, rewriting them, everyday for 10 years, and find, if it's the I/P area, lazy editors just picking, naggling, hairsplitting and kibitzing on minutiae in order to screw the other POV. You say Hamas is one of the 10 articles you've devoted most of your time to. Well here's the record of what you do.
 * 22 edits in 7 years, all save one consisting in reverting out material.
 * This is my record: 117 edits in under 2 years, rewriting mostly the first three sections, adding dozens of academic sources, and meeting now  basic wikipedia criteria for article construction. Most of the sourcing down to note 160 is mine. This has an absurd amount of fucking useless trash sourcing. Al-Qaeda was a major threat and a globally murderous terrorist group: it is covered on wiki in 369 notes in a neat cogent oand orderly exposition. We have so much reduplication and POV yelling on this article that this tiny enclave power that has no impact on the world, gets 550 notes. It's a disgrace and will remain so as long as editors who don't do anything serious on Wikipedia keep nagging and splitting hairs to bog down any concentrated effort to improve the article.Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The only person making attacks here is you. This discussion is about the EU phrasing in the lede. If you'd like to have another discussion, feel free to start one. Drsmoo (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is about NPOV in the lead. I am asking editors why they find mention of the EU problematical, when it is a serious issue, whereas they don't look over the lead and note that Gilad Shalit is given a sentence that does not synthesize anything in the body of the text? There are several POV issues with the lead, and the one that gets people's knickers in a twist concerns a putative excess amount of information (a sentence) about the legality of an important terrorist designation. MNishidani (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I think simply removing the EU designation "issue", but keeping the EU designation, is problematic because the issue reflects well-known EU ambivalence towards the IP conflict more generally. -Darouet (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to go with your proposal. Drsmoo (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Darouet, I meant that mention of the EU status either way (the past assignment, and the current legal issues) should be removed, so the lede shouldn't mentioned EU in this manner at all. It's far too complicated (as demonstrated by the arguments above) to simplify among all other aspects of Hamas. Again, my original point way back was that all that should be stated for the lede is something like "Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by several countries, while others do not. Whether to classify Hamas as a terrorist organization or not is a point of contention among political analysts and academics." That gets in and out in the most neutral and balanced way possible, and leaves you plenty of room in the body to go into all the nuances, such as EU's current stance, that require more room and sourcing to present accurately and neutrally. --M ASEM (t) 23:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to follow. There is no complication whatsoever in any of the one/two line formulations which manage to cover the EU court case succinctly without margins for confusing the reader. No editor here has yet, to my recall, ever noted where the various one-two liner summaries I have offered are inaccurate. Give me concrete grounds for showing the inadequacy of any one or two line summation above, and I'll better understand your point, which, at the moment, is, for me, a vague and repeated opinion.Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "In 2008 Hamas challenged the blacklisting. When the European Court of Justice found in its favour (2014), the EU appealed the decision. In 2016, an advisory opinion confirmed the court’s judgement. A final ECJ verdict is due by the end of 2016. (46 words)"


 * Does that not cover all angles, while being succinct and neutral?Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I should add that I find this NPOV  issue  completely bizarre because this little  snippet on legality is being challenged while a paragraph and a half preceding it, running to 168 words, outlines almost verbatim the official Israeli government POV on Hamas, without one word balancing the account.
 * "In 2006, Hamas used an underground cross-border tunnel to capture the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, holding him captive until 2011, when he was released in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners.[45] Since then, Hamas has continued building a network of internal and cross-border tunnels,[46] which are used to store and deploy weapons, shield militants, and facilitate cross-border attacks. Destroying the tunnels was a primary objective of Israeli forces in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict . . .The military wing of Hamas has launched attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers, often justifying them as retaliatory, in particular for assassinations of the upper echelon of their leadership.[24] Tactics have included suicide bombings, and since 2001, rocket attacks.[25][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Hamas's rocket arsenal, though mainly consisting of short-range homemade Qassam rockets,[33] also includes long-range weapons that have reached major Israeli cities including Tel Aviv and Haifa.[34][35] The attacks on civilians have been condemned as war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch"
 * To any experienced eye that is an impeccable summation of the official Israeli description of Hamas, and I have not touched it. It is due, but, lacking the counter POV, in violation of our obligation for descriptive neutrality. I would be easy to write up a mirror reply from the Hamas supporter or anti-Zionist Jewish American perspective (I am neither) which would invert the equation: Israel had waged 3 wars on Hamas, in which 60-70% of casualties have been civilians, and conducted numerous targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders and militants; has statistically initiated more attacks on Gaza than its adversaries; has imposed a stringent economic blockade on the population protested by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN etc as a violation of the Geneva conventions; dropped 20,000 tons of bombs on infrastructure in the Gaza Strip as opposed to the 40 tons of explosive launched against Israel via mortars and rockets, 99% of which landed in the southern desert, in 2014, etc.etc.etc. I have ignored tampering with the lead there because I prefer writing the article. But as it stands, the above paragraph and a half are without any POV counterpoint, which should influence one's judgement on what the lead is doing.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the coatrack, no your suggestion is not ok because using that would still cause the one idea to be over a third of the whole paragraph (36%). It is a minor detail, and the paragraph should just simply state which countries do and do not consider Hamas a terrorist organization, with possibly a brief note about ongoing litigation in the EU. I'm fine with both Darouet and Masem's proposals. I've just made the edit going with Darouet's proposal. There is a clear consensus to shorten it, now over two noticeboards. Drsmoo (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For the lede, the only key point that should be there is that Hamas is treated as a terrorist organization in some countries, and other countries do not treat them as such, and we can provide a brief list for both (excluding the EU since its status is under legal dispute); and that whether to call Hamas a terrorist organization or not is a point of political and academic debate. That's it for the lede. As soon as you mention the EU's ongoing situation, you have to spend a lot of excess time to try to delinainate what exactly is happening there, something not suitable for the lede given that we have several other examples of countries - both sides - that we can list. Explain the EU situation in the body, and once it is firmly resolved, maybe consider adding the EU to the appropriate list to the lede (as it is a significant country) but not until then. --M ASEM (t) 16:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that suggestion as well. Perhaps you could make the edit then, since you know what you have in mind? Drsmoo (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

to be brief, I don't think anything was wrong with your proposal, but I don't think anything is wrong with Masem's either. And if you're frustrated with Drsmoo because you worked hard to get text you hoped they'd agree to, at the same time Drsmoo isn't totally crazy here: Hamas' status really is complicated. Both of you appreciate that. And the fact that Drsmoo is willing to compromise - accepting Masem's solution - means something. Sometimes good writing means "killing your babies" (deleting text that took a long time to draft) - it's hard but in this case probably for the best. -Darouet (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * First, I would say "don't bury the lede". This should come first, to introduce this material: "It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group."  After that, I tend to favor the first version, in spirit, as being more informative. The second leaves too many questions open (who is appealing what to whom?), though the first exactly as written may be a bit  detailed. It shouldn't be that hard to formulate a compromise.  That said, it may not be clear to incoming people what devils are supposedly in the details.  Neither version seems clearly prejudicial to me; one is just overly detailed and the other under-detailed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree here with, the more detailed first one is preferable, for now. If and/or when the status changes in the future, and gets reported on and commented upon in reliable, independent sources, we can revisit and modify the article main text and then the intro, accordingly. Sagecandor (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Benefits of global warming section
I'm concerned about the subjective wording of this section because it specifically argues that certain effects of global warming "would be good." Would it be possible to describe the purportedly "beneficial" effects of global warming in less subjective terms? Jarble (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I've made an initial edit to try and improve things but more work could certainly be done here. -Darouet (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * How do the sources describe them? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with, could we start here with an analysis of what the sources say? Maybe that would be a better way to go along instead of debating ourselves in our own views? Sagecandor (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to analyze them, but some incomplete citations in the article need to be clarified first. Jarble (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of reference on laws of nature and fine-tuning from journal submitted by Jim Johnson
Background from talk page:Different laws of nature are not considered when discussing fine tuning because “they are what they are”. Only the Mathematical Hypothesis proposed by Max Tegmark, entertains different laws of nature. However, they must be considered when thinking about reality and space. My article, published in the Journal of philosophy and Cosmology, defines a conceptual model that separates space from initial conditions and the big bang. It provides a definition of the laws of nature and discusses the ramifications for different laws. The eighteen-page article has ten Scientific American references and nine books by noted physicist. My previous article on the constants of nature, published by Physics International, is a Wikipedia reference. Topics in Wikipedia that relate to the laws of nature are: Multiverse, Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, Fine-tuned Universe, Physical Laws, and Laws of science. Assuming the Wikipedia reviewers agree; I plan to edit references into the first three topics. I have been corresponding with Isambard Kingdom who deleted the update and reference. He has not provided any specifics for the deletion other than the source is not "on par" with Tegmark or Greene sources (sources I reference multiple times). I hope someone who is familiar with fine-tuning and physics/cosmology will agree that the conceptual model and the analysis has value and should be a reference. Jim Johnson 22:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)
 * Jim, your papers were published in obscure journals, and have not yet been cited by anybody. That your papers cite famous works by famous scientists (popular press) does not necessarily make your papers worth citing at Wikipedia, and you are not an established authority on the subject on which you write (in those papers). Among the sources cited in Multiverse and Dimensionless physical constant are papers written by some of the world's most famous and respected scientists. To cite your papers in those Wikipedia articles would amount to putting them on the same tier as the works of those famous scientists. That would simply be inappropriate. I encourage you to make broader contributions to Wikipedia, and expend less energy trying to promote your own (non-expert) ideas. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you don't seem to be listening. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Isambard, you are using one arbitrary criteria, all Wikipedia contributors must be famous, and a wrong assumption about my knowledge of the subject. This is not a satisfactory response. I am moving this to Formal Mediation.Jim Johnson 00:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)
 * Problem Jim, is that Isembard is right. When considering the reliability of a source, we ask whether the publisher has a reputation for fact checking or accuracy. Your article was published in "Physics International", an obscure journal with no reputation, which is itself carried by Science Publications, a predatory open-access publisher. If they led you to believe they are a quality publisher, you've been had, and they are laughing all the way to the bank. So since reliability of the publication and publisher is non-existent, we can instead consider the author, and then the question is "who is this author and why should anyone care what he thinks?". Somehow I don't think that analysis would lead us to include anything you write about physics. Long story short: Anyone can claim to be an expert, and then publish in a crap journal. That doesn't mean Wikipedia will include it. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Someguy1221, I understand your response and my only defense is the contents of the articles. Is there someone you can request to independently assess, an editor who understands cosmology? I asked Mfb to respond but have not heard back but expect a response. I worked years to be able to publish the two articles referenced and believe they contribute value to the respective subjects. As I stated to Isambard, Martin Harwit helped me primarily with the constants article. As far as Physics International, it is a peer review journal and my article was published with no fees. Articles in Journal of Philosophy and Cosmology are reviewed by the review committee and there is no charge. I hope you agree contents is what is relevant to Wikipedia. Jim Johnson 15:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)
 * This is quite straightforward. When these papers are discussed in reliable, independent sources, providing appropriate expert commentary on their validity and relevance, then suggest edits on the relevant Talk pages (do not edit directly per WP:COI). Until we have reliable independent sources, forget it. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Guy, what is the criteria for External Articles? Could my article go there? 2602:304:B10B:A640:40A9:7E78:F78E:8DA2 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What part of "forget it" was difficult to understand? Guy (Help!) 09:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with comment by, above. Excellent recommendation for what to do next. Stick to what the reliable, independent sources say. As far as External Articles, I wonder if the user means External Links? Sagecandor (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

German Luftwaffe pilot "rabidly anti-Nazi"?
I would appreciate more eyes on this discussion: Der Stern von Afrika: Anti-Nazi? The thread is: "Rabidly anti-Nazi". Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion specific to Marseille's relationship with Nazism moved to: Talk:Hans-Joachim_Marseille, including a discussion of the statement on Marseille by the Military History Research Office (Germany) (MGFA). K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could get here some links to recent changes made to the article in terms of potentially problematic edits? Sagecandor (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * For example, there's an on-going debate whether the "overly detailed" and "unreliable sources" tags should be present in the article: "deleted tags; no justification. Please stop asserting your point of view on this article", even though another editor has agreed on the Talk page that the article is overly detailed and there's plenty of justification provided on the Talk page: Talk:Hans-Joachim_Marseille and Talk:Hans-Joachim_Marseille.


 * I'd also venture to say that the article could stand to have NPOV tag added due to its hagiographic (IMO) tone. If I add it, I'm sure it's going to be removed due to my "POV". I would appreciate others having a look and adding the tag(s) if applicable. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Activism as Editing
User:Sagecandor, who is a month-old SPA which exclusively, and extensively, edits articles about so-called "Russian propaganda" appears to be here to right all the wrongs in the world. There's a dozen other examples of highly aberrant statements that seem to indicate an activist bent; I'll add them here as I have time later. None of this merits disciplinary action but it indicates this editor's contributions are motivated by his moral outrage over a current events issue, as opposed to a desire to write an encyclopedia, and should be watched for potential future problems. BlueSalix (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Here, apparently mistaking my attempts to tone down some of his edits as indication I'm some right-wing nutter (a notion utterly ridiculous for anyone who has seen my edits), he very patiently and seriously tells me we should "all agree foreign meddling in another country's elections is not a good thing. Shouldn't we all be equally concerned about that, regardless of political party or point-of-view."
 * 2) In this RfC he seems to relentlessly demand that User:11Eternity11 acknowledge "Russian propaganda" in an exchange that borders on the bizarre.
 * 3) On this noticeboard he's apparently been trying to raise the alarm about Russian "infiltration" of WP (two threads up from this one).
 * Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Sagecandors_by_Crossswords, where I took some helpful guidance from admins, , as well as , and . I must admit I'm disheartened by the abject assumptions of bad faith by , especially after nicely said by Rhododendrites: "the content of Sagecandor's edits are not (from what I've seen) problematic, and in fact I've seen many attempts at encouraging discussion.". This was a sincere attempt to reach out to BlueSalix with a show of good faith on my part, that was summarily rejected with an incredible display of rudeness and bad faith. I offered to work together and move on, and assume good faith with each other, and I still wish to do so. Sagecandor (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't aware you'd already been invited to a dance at the drama boards for this. As you continue to tango with other editors, expect they may not be aware of your history either.
 * As for "reaching out" - you don't "reach out" to other WP editors by trying to find common political ground with them. My WP edits aren't motivated by politics so don't try to demonstrate to me we're on the same "side" because I don't care if we are; that may sound harsh but it's the truth as it should be. If you're here to write an encylopedia - good. If you're here to fix injustice - bad. Your post to my Talk page indicates you're here for the second thing. Consider this a welcome challenge to prove me wrong. BlueSalix (talk) 1:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Assumptions of bad faith by BlueSalix. My post to his user talk page was a good faith attempt at outreach to smooth over and move forward together. Nothing more, nothing less. I may have mistakenly worded my first post to sound political; the intent was to try to work together in a more good faith manner. I was soundly and rudely rejected as can be seen from the bad faith tone of the responses. Sagecandor (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct. And your future unsolicited agitprop on my Talk page about your political views will also be "soundly and rudely" rejected. This isn't personal, I treat the Mormons who knock on my door the same way. I'm interested in collaborating based on facts and sources; I'm not interested in collaborating based on how our IRL political interests align and it is shockingly inappropriate for you to try to scope-out who your "political allies" are because there's no such thing on WP. When you make those solicitations I don't have to assume you're acting in bad faith - you're demonstrating it. BlueSalix (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My intent was not to come off as a solicitation but rather an olive branch. That the incredible display of bad faith was shown instead of acceptance is quite disappointing. I will certainly respect the wishes of BlueSalix to avoid posting to his talk page in the future. I would sincerely hope our other interactions on other pages will be more friendly. Sagecandor (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, I'm interested in collaborating based on facts and sources; I'm not interested in collaborating based on how our IRL political interests align. Going to my user page and seeing that I've recently policed the sanitizing of the BLP of a Trump regional campaign head and then thinking you could come to my Talk page to cue me in that "hey - - we're on the same team!" isn't an olive branch, it is a bad faith attempt to drum-up allies and a blatant demonstration of a non-NPOV attitude. BlueSalix (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it appears BlueSalix has firm assumptions of bad faith about my intentions, even after they were explained multiple times that I was offering an olive branch. My method of attempting to find common ground was clearly disagreeable to him, and that's perfectly alright. But the manner in which he responded with an incredible display of bad faith is not helpful for our Wikipedia community. Yes, we should all work together on facts and sources. But we should also strive to treat each other with friendliness and civility. Sagecandor (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As has been explained to you many times, inviting me to coordinate edits based on your perception of shared IRL political beliefs is not an "olive branch" - it is an actual, material demonstration of bad faith. But I do regret if you were not pleased with the delicacy of the reception provided you when you made the choice to post your solicitation on my Talk page and will be more attentive to new guests in the future. Now please stop POV-pushing. I'm done here now, the community has been alerted to what you did so there's no further need for my involvement. You can have the last word ("BlueSalix is assuming bad faith," or whatever). BlueSalix (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to say, based on the above, you don't so much "assume bad faith" as "embrace bad faith in a death grip". --Calton | Talk 14:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - NPOVN is pretty obviously the wrong forum for this. Complaints about editor conduct (especially accusations of bad faith, etc) belong at ANI or AE. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On the bright side, this could be an opportunity to create WP:Embrace bad faith in a death grip. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about potential influx of Russian propaganda users
Concerns about influx of Russian propaganda accounts at article: Fake news website.

Background reading:
 * The Guardian
 * The New York Times
 * Business Insider

Examples of recent questionable edits:
 * 1) Removal of source saying propaganda was "a threat to democracy itself".
 * 2) Changed previous wording from "democratic values" to: ---> "Western institutions"
 * 3) Possibly playing against each other to foment chaos = one account cite tags everything in the lead, another removes citations from the lead.

More eyes would be helpful here.

Thank you! Sagecandor (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You just covertly implied User:SashiRolls and User:Crossswords are "Russian propagandists" without pinging them as required when you open a discussion about someone. Simply pointing out their edits without mentioning them by name is not a work around. Given you've only been here a month and your twelfth lifetime edit was to leave a 3RR notice on someone's page, it seems more likely you're the nefarious influence who needs to be checked. LavaBaron (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to imply that. Do mean to imply more eyes on the page would be helpful. As would more eyes on the particular edits cited, above. Sagecandor (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You obviously did imply it. Did you have another account before this one and are you now, or have you ever been, an American propagandist? LavaBaron (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about these accusations LavaBaron. For the record, no, I'm not a "Russian propaganda user", just someone having their reputation smeared by a newbie who seems to know their way around Wikipedia very well after only three weeks of (admittedly constant) connection. SashiRolls (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're certainly welcome. Do not hesitate to let me know if you find yourself subject to any more of these outrageous personal attacks and McCarthyist scaremongering and need assistance. Prochnost! LavaBaron (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * He actually did harassed me in Wikimedia Commons. Just because i uploaded the Google Search Statistics for the term Fake News in a picture, he immediately went and flagged many of my other uploaded pictures for other articles as copyright violations. Pictures who dont even have anything to do with things he/shes interested in like a picture of a videogame disc or a map showing where HIV/Aids is mostly widespread in Russia.--Crossswords (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not see that this problem has occurred here. Wikipedia is hard to infiltrate because there are procedures to block editors who collaborate off-site.  TFD (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello user:Sagecandor. Could you please answer User:LavaBaron's question about your previous Wikipedia identities? In under a month you've racked up over 3,000 edits in some controversial areas. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Byron Mallott
For approximately the past two years, a number of editors have edited numerous articles and other pages to the effect of contending that Byron Mallott is serving as lieutenant governor of Alaska as a Democrat (page links). This has extended to the point of these editors engaging in slow-motion edit warring with myself over this point and largely not bothering to offer a sufficient rationale for their actions. I have offered a rationale for my actions, this being but one example, which I'll detail below. Most of these problems have occurred at Alaska and Template:Current Alaska statewide political officials, but there are plenty of other places on the encyclopedia where this misinformation is being spread.

The few times anyone has actually communicated with me, they've tended to offer explanations which don't hold water. In the first instance, right after Bill Walker and Mallott were sworn in, left a message on my talk page (see here) about the following edits to Alaska:,  and. As you can see from the talk page thread, Count Awesome explained to me what a "unity ticket" is (as if I didn't know or something) and offered a link to another Wikipedia article as a reference. Of course, we've heard the explanation countless times that a Wikipedia article can't suffice as a reliable source. Here's what other sources have to say about the matter. The Alaska Dispatch News began their story on the formation of the "unity ticket", dated September 1, 2014, with the following paragraph: "The Alaska Democratic Party broke with long tradition Monday when its central committee voted 89-2 to not field a gubernatorial ticket and instead put its weight behind the independent campaign of Bill Walker and Byron Mallott". On the Alaska Division of Elections website, you can find several references to Mallott's general election campaign, all of which refer to him as "Non-Affiliated" (which has been their pet term for "independent" for about the past decade or so) and not as a Democrat. Here is the supplemental election pamphlet for 2014 gubernatorial and lieutenant gubernatorial candidates, which features Mallott on page 11 and refers to him as "Non-Affiliated". Here's a sample ballot (sample ballot index page here), which again refers to Mallott as "Non-Affiliated". The official results again shows "NA" in reference to Walker and Mallott.

In the other communication to me regarding this (see here), left an unsigned message on my talk page, confusingly worded, but offers the same link to the ADN story I mentioned above. Mpen320's rationale appears to cherry-pick the statement that Mallott remained registered to vote as a Democrat, all the while ignoring the reference to the Walker/Mallott "independent campaign" and ignoring the fact that the ADP only sought for Walker to change his voter registration in order for the party to offer their support to the ticket, not Mallott (as mentioned in his official biography, there's also the fact that Mallott is registered to vote in Yakutat despite actually living in Juneau for many years, but those sort of shenanigans are halfway common in Alaska). Mpen320 also provided a link to a page on the ADP's website. I never bothered to look at it before because it's hardly anything neutral. The ADN archive search appears to no longer offer preview links for individual articles. However, if one searches for Mallott's name from October 2013, you can see that the party's central committee declared Mallott their nominee by fiat three days after he launched his candidacy, without bothering to wait for the primary election and what voters may have had to say. Even though that particular "source" sorely lacks neutrality or any specific mention of Mallott or his party affiliation, it does offer more clues. One is a link to the Office of the Governor's homepage, which very prominently contains the statement "In December of 2014 Governor Walker and Lt. Governor Byron Mallott were sworn in as the first non-partisan administration in Alaska’s history". Right next to it is a link to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor's homepage, which prominently contains a simliar statement: "Governor Bill Walker and Lt. Governor Byron Mallott took office in December of 2014 as the first non-partisan administration in Alaska history". Mallott's official biography also contains pretty much the same statement.

The bottom line of all this is that both Walker and Mallott were on the ballot as independents and were elected as independents in 2014 and trying to claim otherwise flies in the face of NPOV. All I've asked for since they've taken office is for someone to provide a reliable, neutral source stating that Mallott is recognized as holding the office as a Democrat. To this day, no one has provided that source. Meanwhile, these same editors regularly alter the encyclopedia, continuing to attempt to pawn this off as fact regardless of the above evidence. There's also no "consistency" when in the case of other politicians, we give more weight to what happens on election night than we do to when they're actually sworn in, whereas here we're appearing to pay no attention to what actually happened in the election and giving more weight to who knows what else. This notice was prompted by the latest example of this courtesy of,. As is normally the case with this editor, this was done with no rationale offered whatsoever in the edit summary and with complete indifference to the rationale I offered in my prior edit summary on that page. There's also the matter of a frivolous party designation added to the attorney general's entry, as the holder of that office has never been identified by any particular party label in the course of their official duties, but that's a whole other matter. This same editor added the same information to this template in the form of a hidden comment before they even took office! The closest that any of these editors have come in validating these edits have been in the vague media references to Mallott as a Democrat and equally as vague references to the concept of a fusion ticket. If you care to look through Title 15 of the Alaska Statutes, which is the state's election law, you will see that the law specifically prohibits a write-in ticket for governor and lieutenant governor from having separate affiliations, but it doesn't prohibit that in the case of a ticket who made it onto the ballot via a nominating petition, as was the case here. Considering that, how come the Division of Elections links above don't refer to Mallott as a Democrat if the law allowed for such? In reality, it's because Mallott replaced a candidate (Craig Fleener) who got onto the ballot with Walker via a nominating petition as a nonpartisan ticket after the deadline for submitting signatures had passed, but before the deadline to substitute members of nominated tickets on the general election ballot had passed. That, combined with the first sentence of this last paragraph, is the key to this and key to dispelling the validity of these edits. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a big wall of text, any way maybe we could get a smaller executive summary here, perhaps? Sagecandor (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering that this specific POV has been pushed for over two years and has gone unchecked apart from my efforts, I felt it important to present all the relevant facts. In short, Mallott campaigned for and was elected to this office as an independent, this being expressly mentioned in a variety of sources, including twice on the official website of the lieutenant governor's office.  Various editors are choosing to ignore all this, cherry-picking the fact that he has remained registered to vote as a Democrat and using this fact to contend that he is serving in the office as a Democrat.  There is a difference.  Wally Hickel was elected governor of Alaska in 1990 under the banner of the Alaskan Independence Party.  Carl Moses was elected to the Alaska House of Representatives in 1992 under that same party label.  Both changed their party registration prior to the expiration of their terms (Hickel to Republican, Moses to Democratic), which was recognized as such by sources.  OTOH, there are no sources which state that Mallott is serving in this office as a Democrat, only faint indications in sources that he is registered to vote as a Democrat while serving in the office as an independent.  At the present time, we have other editors blatantly violating WP:CRYSTAL by making a slew of edits claiming that members of the upcoming legislature and its leadership are already in office, seven or eight weeks before they are to sworn in to those offices.  They are using the mere existence of reliable sources, mainly election night news coverage, to make these claims.  We can't say that were "being consistent" by allowing this sort of activity to stand because some editors believe that what happens during the election is all that matters, all the while refusing to apply such a standard to Mallott's election two years ago and instead applying a standard based upon the flimsiest of evidence. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  22:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe Radio KAOS is absolutely right on this issue. I understand this editor is feeling very frustrated by other editors changing Brian Mallott's party affiliation as an officeholder to "Democrat." In order for both Bill Walker and Mallott to be listed on the general election ballot, it was necessary for Brian to vacate his candidacy as the Democratic nominee for governor. In fact, state Senator Hollis French, who won the Democratic nomination for Lt. Governor in 2014, also had to withdraw, leaving that party with no nominee for either office. Also, the Alaska Attorney General position is non-partisan, an appointive position, much like the U.S. Cabinet where i.e., Republicans served as appointees of a Democratic President, viz., Ray LaHood or Chuck Hagel. Governor Walter Hickel, who became governor in 1990 by running as an Alaskan Independent Party candidate appointed, Bruce Botelho to that post, and Hickel's successor, Tony Knowles, retained Bothelo for his two terms. The Alaska A.G. needs confirmation by the state legislature. The current officeholder, Jahna Lindemuth, was appointed in June 2016. Her confirmation was not acted upon in a special session in July, and needs to be confirmed by the legislators when their session reconvenes next year. In the infobox in her article, she is listed as "Democrat," and I'm not sure that's accurate. RadioKAOS is very knowledgeable about Alaskana, is extremely particular about accuracy, and I believe should be vigorously supported in those efforts. Activist (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Korean ethnic nationalism
There is an RfC at Korean ethnic nationalism concerning whether certain paragraphs in the article are POV and/or undue weight. Scolaire (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Immigration and crime in Germany
A number of editors have stated on the talk page that Immigration and crime in Germany, even by its name, does not present a neutral point of view. There is one editor who is edit warring on the mere suggestion that the article has some POV issues, repeatedly removing the POV tag, despite a clear consensus on the talk page that it should remain. Issues of WP:OWNership appear to be present too. I haven't made any substantial contributions to the article and at this point, probably won't but additional eyes requested on the article, please. Toddst1 (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Generation Snowflake - trashy article cited and used as justification for "see also" link
I have major concerns about the neutrality of the entire Generation Snowflake article, but I'll focus on one specific example here, this article by a junior writer at GQ magazine named Eleanor Halls, which is cited three times within the article and has been used by two editors as justification for a "see also" link. The article is very poor on many levels, and I have detailed this on the article Talk page. I think it's absurd that such a poor article is used as justification for including a wikilink to the sitcom The Great Indoors in the "See also" section. As I pointed out on the article talk page, it's hardly a normal practice on wikipedia to include sitcoms in the "see also" section of articles, however two editors, and  are very insistant that it remain  and discussion appears to be fruitless. Editors have also resisted all attempts to include the fact that it is a derogatory term in the article's opening sentence despite it being described as such in numerous reliable sources, notably Collins Dictionary. The whole article needs a big NPOV overhaul. More eyes are needed. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, even after I read the talk page thread on this, I don't understand why such a crappy opinion piece is considered a good source of information, and why it's even included as an external link. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * MaxBrowne linked the wrong page above. The see also actually links to The Great Indoors (TV series).--DynaGirl (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks, fixed. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, but I think it's customary to strike it above and add correction instead of changing after others have responded to it, just so later readers can follow exchange, but at this point, it seems fine to leave it. Also, I think it should be clarified this is an internal see also link not an external link. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * To note that this had been also discussed at RN/S . There, while it is not an RS problem (GQ is reliable), there is definitely a good question of what this writer's expertise is to the topic to justify their opinion's inclusion. --M ASEM (t) 03:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The article looks ok to me. If one See also link to a TV show is the biggest issue you have with the article that's pretty minor. —DIY Editor (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has a problem with poor quality of sources, and the GQ article is one egregious example. Another is the link to a Michelle Malkin polemical piece, which makes only passing mention of "snowflakes". It all adds up to a slant towards passing the term "snowflake" off as a part of legitimate political discourse rather than an insult. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The lede reads to me as if "generation snowflake" is an insult. If the term merits an article at all, the article has to discuss how people use it. —DIY Editor (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've improved the article somewhat on that. The article is still highly POV, I think. MHP Huck (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The whole article relies almost exclusively on opinion pieces for its sourcing, many of them highly polemical. Whether or not the article should even exist is indeed a valid question, however it survived the last Afd discussion. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process... Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions." Keri (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Awards in Karl Wolff article
A disagreement has arisen as to whether certain awards, such as Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918, Golden Party Badge, Honour Chevron for the Old Guard, SA Sports Badge (Bronze), German National Sports Badge (Silver), Olympic Games Decoration (First Class), Nazi Party Long Service Award (10 years), SS Long Service Award (10 years), Sudetenland Medal (with Prague Castle Bar), Memel Medal, Sword of honour of the Reichsführer-SS, SS Honour Ring, SS Julleuchter, should be included in the article.

The relevant discussion is at: Talk:Karl_Wolff. A few more opinions to help reach a consensus would be appreciated.

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)